Discussing politics on the forum isn't against the rules, but knowing how these threads go please remember - keep it civil, everyone.

I was enjoying the lack of American politics on this website

Must be a crossover from WebDip... they are acting brutal over there.. But not many complaints cuz they all pretty much think alike politically. I have to ignore most of them. But they make that hard, even doing it in the Global of games.

@Bolt - You make the assumption he is guilty of the groping when nothing has been thus far proven. As far as stiffing his workers, no such thing occured. The accusation is he refuses to pay contract companies who under performed or didn't do the job. I'm guilty of the same "crime". I hire you to do a job. You do it half ass and don't finish, you don't get paid.

But the real reason I didn't vote for Hillary was her stances on issues of today. I'm pro-life, I believe in the constitution and *all* of it's amendments, and I believe Obamacare is a travesty that is costing the average American worker and the small and midsize business owner and outrageous price to cover a few million who actually were covered indirectly through legal requirements that don't allow medical providers to deny service even if the person can't pay. THAT is why I didn't vote for Hillary.

Nobody on this forum will care about what I have to say, since we're all male here, but I'm going to say it anyway, because I think that we should try to understand perspectives from genders of the opposite sex, since they make up half the population.

The groping allegations have not been proven in court (and this far down the line it is unlikely that they ever will see court) - but I don't think they should be dismissed. Women who are groped don't have the wealth to pay lawyers to represent them, when Trump is able to hire lawyers and drag proceedings out - as they have done in the past in many of his court cases.

I think you should understand that women often don't have an economic incentive to come out about these things. One of the first women to come out is 74, well into retirement. Lou Dobbs tweeted the address and phone number of one of his accusers; Trump has said he will sue them and provide evidence that this didn't occur (which he hasn't on both counts); from #NextFakeTrumpVictim you can already see that a sizeable number of people - right off the bat, without evidence - already have a negative view of them and dismiss their claims.

So what did motivate these women to come out? One reason, it appears, is a sense of injustice.

"Donald J. Trump was emphatic in the second presidential debate: Yes, he had boasted about kissing women without permission and grabbing their genitals. But he had never actually done those things, he said.

“No,” he declared under questioning on Sunday evening, “I have not.”

At that moment, sitting at home in Manhattan, Jessica Leeds, 74, felt he was lying to her face. “I wanted to punch the screen,” she said in an interview in her apartment."
[New York Times]

When you have people in positions of fame, power, wealth, who abuse their status - such as Jimmy Savile and Bill Cosby - their victims don't usually have a snowball's chance in hell of obtaining justice in the immediate aftermath of the incident.

And, call me crazy, but when Trump says, in a conversation he thought to be private:

"I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it, you can do anything... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."

I tend to believe that he's actually done some of these things in the past, and that it's not just a boast he made up.

@Bolt I agree; there should be no tolerance for this behaviour, speech in any shape or form. Indefensible. And unacceptable in an elected official.

But again, for me and for many, it was about what they would do going forward. I couldn't give a rat's ass whisker about Hillary's email server or her extremist ties vIA one of her closest aides beyond her repeating these errors and putting our country at risk, but her stated policies were abhorrent to me. Likewise, the things Trump did or said in the past (unlike HRC, he didn't have dreams of being POTUS so said stupid stuff and did stupid stuff) were nothing compared to Bill Clinton (go talk to Paula Jones or his other abuse/rape victims), but I am concerned about a volatile braggard having access to the nuclear football.

@YouCan'tHandleTheTruth,

I respect Trump supporters. Since he's elected President now, I hope that Trump succeeds in making America prosper, and does not marginalize groups such as the poorest and minorities.

I would suggest that anyone tempted to post on this thread do a quick Google search to understand who Jack Palladino is and his relationship with Hillary Clinton. If you do not know who this man is, then your comments are likely to look incredibly foolish to informed readers.

And no YCHTT, Hillary repeatedly acting to subvert the Freedom of Information Act does matter, and the silence of journalist on this issue is perhaps the most shameful aspect of their performance this cycle. FOIA is at the heart of their role in our society, and their willingness to knowingly sacrifice it in service to their personal political preferences in staggering. Hillary was still actively fighting the FOIA request from 1993 over the Weddington Letter as a Senator in 2006 when it was finally released by the Bush Administration.

Well he was the first republican in a long time to go into those neighborhoods and look for votes. It's not like he received no support from minorities in this election. Democrats have been using the minority groups for years, promising the world and not following through. Every 4 yrs it's the same song and dance, hell they may as well take a chance with Trump. Most of the inner cities have been run by democratic mayors and city councils for decades as they watched these areas decline.

What was that saying about " doing the same things over and over and expecting a diff result" .

I just want to say (as a non American) Trump won because he was the best out of 2 pretty bad choices. Maybe Obama can come back next time ;)

No, he can't once a President has served 6 or more years (1.5 to 2 terms), he cannot ever hold the office again.

"were nothing compared to Bill Clinton (go talk to Paula Jones or his other abuse/rape victims" I profoundly object to a) associating one individual with another's actions - why should Hilary Clinton be held responsible for her husband's actions and b) the acceptance of an accusation of rape, (made, recanted under oath, then made again) as fact is reprehensible in the extreme. It is libellous. This is the kind of smear tactics that undermine other, possibly valid statements you make. But Trump is condemned out of his own mouth.

The sad part of this is that I have seen media coverage of DNC people floating Michelle Obama as a candidate for 2020. The bench is incredibly thin.

Michelle on the campaign trail:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc0QGqzHZUo

Chumbles. The discussion was about alleged past actions making Trump an unworthy President. Bill Clinton was a far more unworthy President as he was impeached. He wasn't removed from office by the Senate but he was impeached. He also has lost his license to practice law. It has nothing to do with Hillary, only with comparing a former President to the current President elect.

Sorry mate, but I have a very hostile reaction to folk repeating allegations unproven in a court of law. "go talk to Paula Jones or his other abuse/rape victims" accepts that the rape allegation "(made, recanted under oath, then made again)" as fact when there is literally only the shaky on/off statements of one person and NO OTHER EVIDENCE is indefensible. If readers of your comment were to accept your libel as fact, they would go away with the impression that Clinton was a rapist. That is indefensible.

So, Chumbles.... It's okay to accept unproven allegations against a politician that you don't like, but abhorrent to consider about those you do? Your position on this subject is the only thing completely indefensible.

@Chumbles.....Paula Jones was paid by Bill Clinton so as to not have her accusations adjudicated in a court of law. Paula Jones was more or less assured of having won her case in front of a jury given that Bill Clinton had lied under oath in the case. (That is just a statement about the realities of legal proceedings: if you get caught intentionally lying under oath in a case, you are going to lose) He was disbarred for having done so.

I will repeat that you should take a look at who Jack Palladino is and his relationship with Hillary. Payments to him are publicly documented and he has made public comments that come pretty close to admitting what he was paid for. He is someone who threatens, smears and destroys your enemies when you can't counter what they are saying. A particularly vile member of the Clinton's campaign operation began making veiled public references to Mr. Palladino and Hillary's having been the one who brought him into the operation in 1992 back in the mid-1990s after having been banished from Clinton-land.

The burden of proof owed to Bill Clinton is actually lower. Hillary has herself publicly supported the belief that the legalistic burdens of proof we apply socially in these sorts of cases should be lower. Trump has not made such systematic statements to my knowledge. Applying to Bill and Hillary (and only Bill and Hillary) the standards of judgment that Hillary has endorsed seems perfectly reasonable to me. I reserve the right to judge you by a consistent universal standard that I fairly apply to all people or I have the option of idiosyncratically applying to you the standard of judgment that you propose for other people.

"Your position on this subject is the only thing completely indefensible" My position is purely on the evidence available that Clinton is a rapist. I have no brief for the man or his wife and frankly my support if I were a US citizen would be with Bernie Sanders. And I do not adopt other people's standards "The burden of proof owed to Bill Clinton" is the same as to anyone else. If you descend to the level of 'social truth' and 'socially acceptable' you are regressing to the level of the lynch mob. I absolutely accept that Bill Clinton should not on these grounds be elected as President of the USA. But by the same token, neither should Trump. Both are detestable.

But I believe everyone else has had enough of this; I have, so shall leave Trump to the rest of you.

Bernie Sanders was not on the ballot. Your position is a cop out.

Your second point is inane. The guillotine for Robespierre is hardly endorsement of the lynch mob in any sort of general sense. It is far closer to enforcing the dictum of Confucius.

I can cast my hypothetical vote where I please, thank you! Also, I am indebted to you for pointing out my pusillanimous inanity. I am expiring under the weight of your Robespierre, and then completely undone by your Confucious: your artful speech is the confusion of virtue.

Chumbles, in the US, when a person pays off another to settle a case, they are generally viewed as guilty. Clinton not only paid off Paula Jones, but lost his license to practice for lying under oath.

Trump has not been found guilty nor settled any of these cases out if court. Clinton us clearly the far worse offender.

Will you please read what I wrote? I objected specifically to the statement that Clinton is a rapist. Nothing else.

Clinton paid off Paula Jones to make it go away, ergo he is guilty on some level of what she accused hime, ergo he is a rapist.

http://www.albertpeia.com/oxfordassault.htm

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck...

Oh, and by the way, our objection is that you aren't giving Trump the same assumpotion of innocence you give Bill Clinton. The accusations against Clinton are far greater yet you think Trump is the one unworthy of being president. Try again. Locker room talk on old video is not admissible in court (hearsay) but cum stained dresses and lying to Congress seem to be OK in you book.

@YCHTT.....you are wrong. Paula Jones at no point has ever accused Bill Clinton of raping her or of attempting to rape her in the legal sense. He sexually propositioned her and engaged in lewd behavior as her employer. That is not even a crime. It is at worst a tort and grounds for civil action. I am unaware of her claiming workplace retaliation after she said "Hell, no." The scandal is genuinely vicious campaign to demonize and discredit her. I am old enough to distinctly remember James Carville going on national television and calling Paula Jones "a worthless piece of trailer trash" by name. The substance of the grand jury testimony of Christopher Hitchens in the Lewinsky investigation was that in a restaurant during a Sunday morning brunch that he was fed information by a close Clinton aid that came almost certainly from Monica Lewinsky's FBI file as a White House intern and Defense Department employee and that the information that he was provided by this former DC based journalist turned political operative appeared more or less verbatim in numerous media outlets over the following days.

My best friend growing up was raised by his grandparents. His grandfather is Leon Jaworski's former legal partner. This is the kind of stuff that defined what Watergate was really all about to the man who actually was the prosecutor in charge. This is precisely why Chuck Colson went to jail.

You are, of course, correct about Paula Jones accusation. But just as many have said a rich and powerful man of Trump's influence can get out of a lot, this applies to Slick Willie as well. And honestly, also in. It case, rich and powerful men are often accused of heinous crimes by immorality people looking for a payday. It has already been shown in the upcoming case against Trump that his accuser has done this before and outright lost the case as she was lying at the behest of someone in the media.

And I remember Clinton very well. Considering Reagan was my CiC when I was in the Corps.