Author Topic: State of the Union?  (Read 1632 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 29573
Re: State of the Union?
« Reply #105 on: February 06, 2020, 01:45:33 PM »
I get what you are saying, Adami.  Admittedly, my first knee-jerk reaction to protest is often (but not always):*  "That's dumb and pointless."  But putting that aside, I have two fundamental problems with this particular act as a show of protest:
1.  That isn't the time or place to protest, and any such protest is therefore completely inappropriate.  And that goes doubly for Pelosi because it isn't like she doesn't have a platform to get any form of protest in the public eye at will. 
2.  By her own admission, I don't think Pelosi really considered it a "protest" in the first place.  She pretty much fessed up to it being just acting out because she thought his speech was garbage. 


* Regarding the statement I led with, just to clarify, I absolutely respect the right to protest.  I just don't respect most protests themselves, if that makes sense.

I get that. But I also don't think it's necessarily our place to judge what's the appropriate place to protest in all cases. Sometimes, it becomes pretty obvious, but this was pretty low key, minus the media making a huge deal out of it. The act itself was pretty benign. She didn't say it was because his speech was garbage, as far as I read, she said he "shredded the truth" so she shredded the speech. Agree with her or not, I feel like that qualifies as a form of protest. Again, not really our place to deem it right or wrong. Since then we'll likely just say it's always wrong when we don't agree and totally legit when we agree.

Do I think she did anything worthwhile? Nah. Was it helpful? Nah. But that's not how we measure it always. I know we have deemed her to be nothing more than a power hungry self-righteous childish twit, but maybe she truly believes that democracy is being attacked, that the government of her country is being harmed, and she is protesting that. Who knows?
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline kaos2900

  • Posts: 2711
  • Gender: Male
Re: State of the Union?
« Reply #106 on: February 06, 2020, 02:23:25 PM »
Here's the thing, if Pelosi didn't tear up the speech, the primary thing being shown would be Trump not shaking her hand. Regardless of her intent, it makes he look bad (to most).  Instead of yet another example of Trump being a douche, she stole his thunder so to speak.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23245
  • Bad Craziness
Re: State of the Union?
« Reply #107 on: February 06, 2020, 02:28:56 PM »
I don't expect to get much support, but it seems to me the SotU is the ideal place for protest. Is there any sense of legitimacy to those things anymore? Does it do anything whatsoever productive for the nation? Is it anything other than pointless grandstanding for the party in the white house right now? Frankly, I'd call it an ideal representation of exactly why this country is failing so miserably. It does nothing but reinforce the partisan divide and provide a nationally televised outlet for a ridiculous amount of bullshit and pandering. There actually is a limited form of protest, but it's merely not standing and clapping when the "applause sign" lights up. Frankly, it's a joke and should be treated as such.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Dave_Manchester

  • Posts: 1254
Re: State of the Union?
« Reply #108 on: February 06, 2020, 02:37:20 PM »
Here's the thing, if Pelosi didn't tear up the speech, the primary thing being shown would be Trump not shaking her hand.

Which in itself is why it's been an eye-opening experience for me to learn that this self-aggrandizing pageantry is meant to be taken seriously. Does anybody even remember a single thing that Trump actually said during that speech? Because there was a huge amount of demonstrable bullshit in there yet the whole thing is boiled down to handshakes and paper ripping. If that's how seriously this thing is taken as a political event, why does anyone care whose hand gets shaken and which documents get torn up? I watched the whole speech and I found it to be a stupid and debasing experience for everyone involved.
"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts' desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron" - H.L.Mencken, 26th July 1920.

"China has total respect for Donald Trump and for Donald Trump's very very large brain" - American President Donald Trump, September 26th 2018.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24289
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: State of the Union?
« Reply #109 on: February 06, 2020, 02:40:50 PM »
I don't expect to get much support, but it seems to me the SotU is the ideal place for protest. Is there any sense of legitimacy to those things anymore? Does it do anything whatsoever productive for the nation? Is it anything other than pointless grandstanding for the party in the white house right now? Frankly, I'd call it an ideal representation of exactly why this country is failing so miserably. It does nothing but reinforce the partisan divide and provide a nationally televised outlet for a ridiculous amount of bullshit and pandering. There actually is a limited form of protest, but it's merely not standing and clapping when the "applause sign" lights up. Frankly, it's a joke and should be treated as such.

I kind of agree, but in this case, I actually think the SotU does server some purpose as Trump doesn't do press conferences and otherwise only communicates with the public via twitter.  I think it's good for the country, even as ridiculous as he is, to get up and face the nation directly.  Having said that, it's all mostly meaningless at the end of the day, but part of me feels like these things have some value given who and how this POTUS communicates.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23245
  • Bad Craziness
Re: State of the Union?
« Reply #110 on: February 06, 2020, 03:10:03 PM »
I don't expect to get much support, but it seems to me the SotU is the ideal place for protest. Is there any sense of legitimacy to those things anymore? Does it do anything whatsoever productive for the nation? Is it anything other than pointless grandstanding for the party in the white house right now? Frankly, I'd call it an ideal representation of exactly why this country is failing so miserably. It does nothing but reinforce the partisan divide and provide a nationally televised outlet for a ridiculous amount of bullshit and pandering. There actually is a limited form of protest, but it's merely not standing and clapping when the "applause sign" lights up. Frankly, it's a joke and should be treated as such.

I kind of agree, but in this case, I actually think the SotU does server some purpose as Trump doesn't do press conferences and otherwise only communicates with the public via twitter.  I think it's good for the country, even as ridiculous as he is, to get up and face the nation directly.  Having said that, it's all mostly meaningless at the end of the day, but part of me feels like these things have some value given who and how this POTUS communicates.
That's actually a pretty good point. Yet, if we've gotten to the point where the best validation for continuing this idiotic farce is that it might expose what a dipshit the president is, then I still have to call it an ideal place to protest.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Dave_Manchester

  • Posts: 1254
Re: State of the Union?
« Reply #111 on: February 06, 2020, 03:15:40 PM »
I don't expect to get much support, but it seems to me the SotU is the ideal place for protest. Is there any sense of legitimacy to those things anymore? Does it do anything whatsoever productive for the nation? Is it anything other than pointless grandstanding for the party in the white house right now? Frankly, I'd call it an ideal representation of exactly why this country is failing so miserably. It does nothing but reinforce the partisan divide and provide a nationally televised outlet for a ridiculous amount of bullshit and pandering. There actually is a limited form of protest, but it's merely not standing and clapping when the "applause sign" lights up. Frankly, it's a joke and should be treated as such.

I kind of agree, but in this case, I actually think the SotU does server some purpose as Trump doesn't do press conferences and otherwise only communicates with the public via twitter.  I think it's good for the country, even as ridiculous as he is, to get up and face the nation directly.  Having said that, it's all mostly meaningless at the end of the day, but part of me feels like these things have some value given who and how this POTUS communicates.

To be honest he does press conferences all the time, it's just that rather than doing them from the Briefing Room (as was custom), he prefers to do them on the White House lawn before boarding Marine One. Prior to the impeachment trial he would do at least 2 per week, usually lasting around 15 minutes (longer if he'd thought up some new nicknames for the Democrats). He hasn't done any since the trial began, presumably because God only knows what addled nonsense would come spewing out of his trap and his lawyers were concerned he'd talk his way up from abuse of power to a first degree murder charge. His impromptu 'press conferences' on the lawn are the stuff of legend (the media refer to them as 'Chopper Talk'), some of his funniest streams of consciousness come out of them. Quite honestly I've missed them. His next one should be an absolute doozy if this afternoon's unhinged rant is anything to go by.
"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts' desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron" - H.L.Mencken, 26th July 1920.

"China has total respect for Donald Trump and for Donald Trump's very very large brain" - American President Donald Trump, September 26th 2018.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 21838
  • Gender: Male
Re: State of the Union?
« Reply #112 on: February 06, 2020, 03:27:09 PM »
I don't expect to get much support, but it seems to me the SotU is the ideal place for protest. Is there any sense of legitimacy to those things anymore? Does it do anything whatsoever productive for the nation? Is it anything other than pointless grandstanding for the party in the white house right now? Frankly, I'd call it an ideal representation of exactly why this country is failing so miserably. It does nothing but reinforce the partisan divide and provide a nationally televised outlet for a ridiculous amount of bullshit and pandering. There actually is a limited form of protest, but it's merely not standing and clapping when the "applause sign" lights up. Frankly, it's a joke and should be treated as such.

I kind of agree, but in this case, I actually think the SotU does server some purpose as Trump doesn't do press conferences and otherwise only communicates with the public via twitter.  I think it's good for the country, even as ridiculous as he is, to get up and face the nation directly.  Having said that, it's all mostly meaningless at the end of the day, but part of me feels like these things have some value given who and how this POTUS communicates.

To be honest he does press conferences all the time, it's just that rather than doing them from the Briefing Room (as was custom), he prefers to do them on the White House lawn before boarding Marine One.

I've read that some of the times he isn't even getting on the chopper. He just has them start it in the background so 1) he looks important and on the move and 2) he can pretend to not hear the questions being asked of him.

Offline TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 40127
  • Gender: Male
  • Just a decent, normal metal-head fellow
Re: State of the Union?
« Reply #113 on: February 06, 2020, 07:28:05 PM »
She literally came home from work tonight and the first thing she said was, “Did you see what that Pelosi did. It was DEPLORABLE.”   :lol

True!
Did she say anything about Trump refusing to shake her hand?  Wasn't that deplorable?

HI Hef!

We didn't talk about it, but I know what she say. She'd say something along the lines of "Why should he? The Democrats have been trying to undermine him since he took office."

That'd be her response.





The point is, none of these events occur in vacuum, and we can all run the chain as far back as we need to to make "our" point or bolster "our" side.   

This is so true, and it is key to what I've been thinking about Trump lately. Speaking of The Lovely Mrs TAC, I started to have a conversation with her about Trump this morning, and then it was fucking BAM " :facepalm: >:( >:( >:( :censored :censored :censored Clinton  :\ :\ :tdwn :tdwn :tdwn :angry: :angry: :angry: Obama  :censored :censored :censored :censored :censored Hillary"

After about 6 or 7 minutes of this  :lol I was like, you don't even know WTF I was going to say!


My thought is that Stadler , I think, has been saying that we've been going down this road to Trump for a while now. Partisanship seems to get worse with each new president. To me, Trump is a real life SNL skit to wake us all the fuck up on the ridiculousness of it all.
At some point we need to break the chain of tit for tat. Well Obama did it...well, Bush did it... WTF...George Fucking Washington probably did it too! Stadler warns about Post Trump. The country needs to decide. It's either going to smarten up or it's getting worse.



I'm not sure exactly how I feel about Pelosi ripping up the speech. I guess I'm kind of um torn  ;D on it.
On one hand, I kind of applaud the statement it makes. On the other hand, there is no need to join Trump at the Kid's Table. To me, and I'm a Democrat, the handshake thing is a non issue.


The SOTU has grown to be a clusterfuck anyway. After every sentence, half the room stands and applauds. WTF? So say Trump says that Unemployment is at an all time low. It's either:
a. A lie...and the Republicans are wooping it up over a lie, or,
b. It's true, and somehow the Democrats aren't happy about that??


What the hell?


Can I ask a dumb question...Instead of Impeachment, could there have simply been some kind of censure?
I feel like if you're going to go nuclear, it's probably best to go nuclear over something...um nuclear.

Clinton lying to Congress about banging a chick, to me, does not mean he should be removed from office. I'm not sure Trump deserved to be removed from office over Ukraine.
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums................or WTF.  ;D

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20009
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: State of the Union?
« Reply #114 on: February 07, 2020, 07:37:47 AM »
Stads, I think one issue here is that you (and rightfully so to some degree) hold all politicians to a certain standard, and when any of them go below that standard (which is all of them for the most part) it all gets grouped into equivalent. However, that's just not the case. Trump not shaking her hand out of spite is extremely different than her ripping up his speech as a form of protest. You might see them as the same because they're both below the standard of how people should be acting in a functioning democracy, but we aren't in a healthy functioning democracy. Protesting is a legitimate action and ought to be respected to at least some level, even if you disagree with why they're protesting. Being a dick is not the same as protesting. So wearing white, or not standing, or whatever is being used a form of protest. Trump is just being a dick.

Well, not to quibble, but I actually AGREE that "they are not the same", but the OTHER way.  Trump's a child.   He's a guy that is vindictive, petty, and amateur.  Anyone surprised that he didn't shake her hand hasn't been paying attention for the past three years.   That's not in debate.   I do have a (big) problem with the moralization of the Democrat platform, and (one of) the problems with that is that it precludes certain behaviors.   Pelosi is the one calling for maturity and decorum. She's called caucuses of her House members instructing them to do the same.   Even the Democratic Party Public Relations representative - the CNN White House correspondent - called her on that point yesterday.   

Look, there are posts on posts on posts here, other forums and Twitter quippily and snarkily pointing out that Trump tweeted this in 2010 and now is tweeting that in 2020, and so I don't think I'm out of line in pointing out my RESPECTFUL disappointment in the one person that I thought was (and still, largely, think is) above the fray.  I think it's the kind of message that is targeted ONLY at the believers.  If you think Pelosi is a commie bitch, you're not going to all of a sudden like her now; if you think she's the matriarch of the party, you're still going to love her.  But for me, our biggest problem facing the US  today (domestically) is the partisanship; and for reducing partisanship, it's the worst possible move (for the reasons I've just stated).   

I keep saying this, but as bad as Trump is - and no doubt, he's bad - he has a shelf-life.  He's DONE in 9/57 months one way or the other.  The partisanship is going to remain, and as long as it does, we're (collective) going to be a) prone to another Trump-ian figure, and b) be easy prey for the Chinese.   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20009
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: State of the Union?
« Reply #115 on: February 07, 2020, 07:52:41 AM »

Can I ask a dumb question...Instead of Impeachment, could there have simply been some kind of censure?
I feel like if you're going to go nuclear, it's probably best to go nuclear over something...um nuclear.

Clinton lying to Congress about banging a chick, to me, does not mean he should be removed from office. I'm not sure Trump deserved to be removed from office over Ukraine.

It's not a dumb question at all.  I offered this up early on  as a possibility, though I also rejected it pretty quickly for various reasons.  Joe Manchin, a Democratic Senator who occasionally votes with Trump offered this up as recently as last week, but it was too late, and in the face of a full acquittal, it was shot down.   My gut tells me that the vote for censure would not have been 52-48.   

I mean this metaphorically, because I'm not suggesting that there be any action taken or any consequences, but the parade of the last two weeks was one big campaign stump for the Democrats.  Schiff SEVERELY miscalculated how it would be received (and responded to), but I cannot believe that he didn't realize that this was just a show-and-tell presentation on his part. If there was any real appetite for actual consequences for the President's behavior I have to believe this would have gone down rather differently, and "censure" would have been on the table.  I say this as both someone that dislikes Schiff deeply  but also had hopes that he could pull a hail mary:  he really misread the room.   Of all the people that Trump calls "failing", it perhaps applies most to Adam Schiff in regards to this impeachment.

EDIT:  With respect to the rest (in particular the "post-Trump landscape", you've very accurately presented my position over the past couple months or so.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20009
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: State of the Union?
« Reply #116 on: February 07, 2020, 08:05:01 AM »

The SOTU has grown to be a clusterfuck anyway. After every sentence, half the room stands and applauds. WTF? So say Trump says that Unemployment is at an all time low. It's either:
a. A lie...and the Republicans are wooping it up over a lie, or,
b. It's true, and somehow the Democrats aren't happy about that??

I've been sort of bemused about the new popularity of "fact checks", and in fact both Jake Tapper and Jim Sciuto have taken to ending any interview with someone without a "D" after their name - check me on this; I'm not exaggerating even a little bit - with "Thank you, [insert name]; quick fact check [insert different opinion than the one given].  We'd love to have you back on the show."   

I used to check each one, then I got bored, but I'm back now to checking them, and increasingly they are not black and white.  They are not "Trump says 2+2=5; in fact, 2+2=4".   They are increasingly "Trump says 2+2=4; technically, he's correct, but the equation calls for multiplication, so we give this a half-truth".   He wasn't exactly WRONG on most of the points Pelosi et. al disagreed with; it was the IMPLICATION that he drew from the points he gave.  For example, Trump said "the economy is “the best it has ever been.”  But the fact check noted that "GDP growth fell to 2.3% last year and economists predict further slowing this year"; GDP is a common, and well-regarded indicator of the economy, but not the ONLY indicator.  Another: Trump "boasted that the “unemployment rate for women reached the lowest level in almost 70 years.”".  The fact-check acknowledged that that's "true", but noted (unnecessarily when assessing the truth of Trump's statement) that "it had been trending down for several years before he took office."  That's not in dispute, and not what Trump said.
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/factchecking-the-state-of-the-union-3/

This is another good example: https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/28/politics/fact-checking-trump-ukraine-scandal-bidens/index.html  To wit:  "Trump has also claimed that Biden pressured Ukraine to take chief prosecutor Viktor Shokin "off the case." Biden pressured Ukrainian leaders to fire Shokin -- the Obama administration, US allies and Ukrainian anti-corruption activists saw Shokin as unwilling to prosecute elite corruption -- but there is no public evidence that Biden sought to get Shokin removed from any particular case."  Seriously?  We're going to quibble over the specific meaning of "case"?  It's a common euphemism to use "case" to mean "issue", not a specific court filing.   But this is deemed a "lie". 

For a guy that lies as much as Trump does (unassailable) you'd think they wouldn't have to try so hard to prove it. 

Online Kattelox

  • Son of a Shepherd and Head of Urban Rangers
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11874
  • Filthy animals do not belong in Rolf's shed!
Re: State of the Union?
« Reply #117 on: February 07, 2020, 08:31:25 AM »
Yeah, dems are incompetent, it's all dems and Jake Tapper and CNN... it's not like lawyers and an effective anti-media, anti-trust (not that one), anti-respect campaign from the president and his base have anything to do with why it's so hard to get anything to stick both legally or in the eyes of the public. Not saying the dems haven't bungled some things along the way but you make it sound like they're bumbling idiots, which is completely off base
DOWN, LOWER, BELOW, AT THE BOTTOM, WHERE THE TRAIN OBSERVES YOU
RYM | Last.FM | Top 50 Albums

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20009
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: State of the Union?
« Reply #118 on: February 07, 2020, 08:44:50 AM »
Yeah, dems are incompetent, it's all dems and Jake Tapper and CNN... it's not like lawyers and an effective anti-media, anti-trust (not that one), anti-respect campaign from the president and his base have anything to do with why it's so hard to get anything to stick both legally or in the eyes of the public. Not saying the dems haven't bungled some things along the way but you make it sound like they're bumbling idiots, which is completely off base

Except for the "bumbling idiots" (vis-a-vis Schiff; he's the Marcia Clark of impeachments), that's not at all what I said.  Not sure how many times I have to cite "divisiveness" as the main issue, and point out it takes two sides to be divisive, in these discussions.  But the GOP, for better or worse, is not making "integrity" the main issue.  If you're going to accuse the other side of bad behavior, it's not unreasonable to expect (and in some cases, legally required; the concept is called "unclean hands") that the accusers not be engaging in the same actions.   

Online Kattelox

  • Son of a Shepherd and Head of Urban Rangers
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11874
  • Filthy animals do not belong in Rolf's shed!
Re: State of the Union?
« Reply #119 on: February 07, 2020, 08:47:59 AM »
Yeah, dems are incompetent, it's all dems and Jake Tapper and CNN... it's not like lawyers and an effective anti-media, anti-trust (not that one), anti-respect campaign from the president and his base have anything to do with why it's so hard to get anything to stick both legally or in the eyes of the public. Not saying the dems haven't bungled some things along the way but you make it sound like they're bumbling idiots, which is completely off base

Except for the "bumbling idiots" (vis-a-vis Schiff; he's the Marcia Clark of impeachments), that's not at all what I said.  Not sure how many times I have to cite "divisiveness" as the main issue, and point out it takes two sides to be divisive, in these discussions.  But the GOP, for better or worse, is not making "integrity" the main issue.  If you're going to accuse the other side of bad behavior, it's not unreasonable to expect (and in some cases, legally required; the concept is called "unclean hands") that the accusers not be engaging in the same actions.

The GOP can't make integrity the issue, because they've flip-flopped so hard on their values by denouncing, then supporting Trump, and standing by while he makes a mockery of the things they supposedly believe in (again, a man who has had multiple marriages and said the things he's said about women, who used to be democrat, is the guy to lead the republican party and their conservative values into the future?). The GOP is the last political party that should ever talk about "integrity."
DOWN, LOWER, BELOW, AT THE BOTTOM, WHERE THE TRAIN OBSERVES YOU
RYM | Last.FM | Top 50 Albums

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20009
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: State of the Union?
« Reply #120 on: February 07, 2020, 09:01:01 AM »
Yeah, dems are incompetent, it's all dems and Jake Tapper and CNN... it's not like lawyers and an effective anti-media, anti-trust (not that one), anti-respect campaign from the president and his base have anything to do with why it's so hard to get anything to stick both legally or in the eyes of the public. Not saying the dems haven't bungled some things along the way but you make it sound like they're bumbling idiots, which is completely off base

Except for the "bumbling idiots" (vis-a-vis Schiff; he's the Marcia Clark of impeachments), that's not at all what I said.  Not sure how many times I have to cite "divisiveness" as the main issue, and point out it takes two sides to be divisive, in these discussions.  But the GOP, for better or worse, is not making "integrity" the main issue.  If you're going to accuse the other side of bad behavior, it's not unreasonable to expect (and in some cases, legally required; the concept is called "unclean hands") that the accusers not be engaging in the same actions.

The GOP can't make integrity the issue, because they've flip-flopped so hard on their values by denouncing, then supporting Trump, and standing by while he makes a mockery of the things they supposedly believe in (again, a man who has had multiple marriages and said the things he's said about women, who used to be democrat, is the guy to lead the republican party and their conservative values into the future?). The GOP is the last political party that should ever talk about "integrity."

Not to split hairs or pick nits here, but I would have hoped that after Clinton, the notion of a man's (or woman's) marriage history would be treated as inconsequentially as it actually is.   Sounds a lot like "finding reasons to justify hate" if you ask me.

As for the rest, ok fine, whether they CAN'T or just DON'T, they're NOT, the Democrats are, and it's equally as disingenuous.

Online Kattelox

  • Son of a Shepherd and Head of Urban Rangers
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11874
  • Filthy animals do not belong in Rolf's shed!
Re: State of the Union?
« Reply #121 on: February 07, 2020, 09:04:14 AM »
I, too, think Bill Clinton getting blown is equivalent to Trump being married three times and bragging about making unwanted advances on women. Sure.  :tup

GOP's fine with all that... but they want to preach about the sanctity of marriage, "family values"...
DOWN, LOWER, BELOW, AT THE BOTTOM, WHERE THE TRAIN OBSERVES YOU
RYM | Last.FM | Top 50 Albums