Jump to content
Ten oz

Why doesn't truth matter & middle ground

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, waitforufo said:

....  Jobs were plentiful.  .  

You do realise that, Under Reagan, unemployment peaked to a level that wasn't seen again until the S*** hit the fan under Bush's administration (leaving Obama to sort it out), don't you?

 

Or are you just illustrating the idea that the truth doesn't matter?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_in_the_United_States

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Or are you just illustrating the idea that the truth doesn't matter?

 

He's trying to illustrate the idea that truth doesn't matter unless it agrees with him or Santa...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, waitforufo said:

The driver was in town to participate in a march and rally which received a legal permit by the city.

Perhaps you've watched too many Tucker Carlson videos where they advocate "How to run over protesters".

Show me the part of the permit that allows for driving a vehicle into crowds.

It's one thing to be intransigent, even hyper-partisan, but advocating or turning a blind eye to murder is the height of reprehensible.

No less for exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, swansont said:

A Part of this (allegedly tiny) minority is currently in power. So no, I don't my "hysteria" is blown way out of proportion..

So Republicans equal Nazi's in your mind?  Your above statement is completely unhinged.  

49 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

You do realise that, Under Reagan, unemployment peaked to a level that wasn't seen again until the S*** hit the fan under Bush's administration (leaving Obama to sort it out), don't you?

 

Or are you just illustrating the idea that the truth doesn't matter?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_in_the_United_States

Perhaps you are too young or have forgotten just how bad stagflation was under Jimmy Carter.  Stagflation was and economic phenomenon that economists thought was impossible.  Combined inflation and unemployment.  Reagan gambled that the nation could take the pain of correcting this situation.  He was correct and the nation rewarded him with a second term.  Here is the electoral map.  The largest electoral win in US history.

Image result

 

12 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Perhaps you've watched too many Tucker Carlson videos where they advocate "How to run over protesters".

Show me the part of the permit that allows for driving a vehicle into crowds.

It's one thing to be intransigent, even hyper-partisan, but advocating or turning a blind eye to murder is the height of reprehensible.

No less for exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

No part of the permit permitted driving a vehicle into crowds.  That is not the issue.  He had the legal right to be where he was and be unmolested. If the facts show that he believed his life was threatened by a mob, his actions were self defense.  I hope that a jury does not find that to be the case, but I won't be surprised if they do.  

I'm not turning a blind I to murder.  I have called it just that.  i'm just a realist with regard to our criminal justice system and I understand the legal meaning of reasonable doubt.  Also there are consequences of mob violence.  Those participating in it are culpable in the results. 

If you have a problem with white supremacists having 1st amendment rights.  Take that up with the ACLU. They always go to bat for Nazi's and white supremacist when it comes to the first amendment.  By the way it doesn't matter if I like that or not.  Its the law that we all have to deal with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, waitforufo said:

Having been on a criminal  jury, I think he has a good chance of getting off.

You have a valid point here and we agree. He shouldn't get off, but could. We'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, waitforufo said:

Perhaps you are too young or have forgotten just how bad stagflation was under Jimmy Carter.  Stagflation was and economic phenomenon that economists thought was impossible.  Combined inflation and unemployment.

I admit I'm young enough that I had to check. I looked and found some stuff about it here.
https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543

And I found out that it happened in 1972 under Nixon: who was, so I understand it, in addition to being a liar, a Republican.

 

Inflation was pretty bad under Carter; normal people blame it on the oil crisis.



Incidentally, I don't know the details of the issue with that car but, in the circumstances the difference between defence and murder is simple, given that the protesters are in front.


Was the car in reverse or forward gear? The driver has a clear choice- forward into a group of people or backwards away from them.

Only one of those cations is defensive.

So,  the assertion "If the facts show that he believed his life was threatened by a mob, his actions were self defence.  " is false unless you can show that eh vehicle didn't have a reverse gear. So, the behaviour is indefensible (literally so- there is no defence) and one side is trying to defend it.

No prizes for guessing  which side is trying to defend the indefensible.
The irony of this in a thread about lying is truly remarkable.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of you, in your rush to pillory Waitforufo, are not reading his posts.
( the only one who understood is iNow )

He's not claiming that the car driver should get off, on the contrary, he calls him a murderer; He is saying that, with the way the Justice system works, there is a distinct possibility that a murderer might be set free.
Its not like it hasn't happened before.
( have a drink of 'juice' and think about it ) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MigL said:

Some of you, in your rush to pillory Waitforufo, are not reading his posts.
( the only one who understood is iNow )

He's not claiming that the car driver should get off, on the contrary, he calls him a murderer; He is saying that, with the way the Justice system works, there is a distinct possibility that a murderer might be set free.
Its not like it hasn't happened before.
( have a drink of 'juice' and think about it ) 

I don't think waitforufo was advocating for the driver. I just viewed it as a bit of a troll thing.  Entering a technicality (no less an abstract one) into the discussion. We have no idea if the driver will or won't so the point is neither true nor false. Moot perhaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 11:20 AM, Ten oz said:

@ tar I asked you specific policy questions in a post above which you seem to have chosen to ignore. Instead you just continue to post about your feelings. If there is common ground to be had at some point we need to discuss actual policy. After all Trump and Congress are attempting to change policy: taxes, healthcare, NAFTA,TPP, and etc. Other than carrying on about supporting your president what actual policies do you support. What do you believe will be in the tax cut package coming out of the Senate? 

Ten Oz,

Taxes I want to see simplified progressive taxes where low income people  pay little and large income people pay a lot and middle income pay a reasonable amount, with sta ndard deductions to everybody to account for charity and local taxes and such.  Most important is to not penalize small businesses for making money, or to take larger amounts from capital gains income.  Now in my time of life my money is working for me.  It is still my money.  If I benefit from interest or dividends or appreciated value, it should be my money to spend to live. My money is capital for mortgages, car loans, student loans and business loans.  I should be paid a little to loan it out.  Those gains are honest gains,

Healthcare is a mess.  I don't think people should be forced by law to buy insurance.  Neither do I think the government should be responsible for everyone's health care.   People should be in charge of their own lives, make decisions to have babies or smoke or skydive or have unsafe sex or get a procedure or not.  Neither do I think it is the responsibility of an employer to provide healthcare.   Initially strong corporations offered health care plans as a benefit to attract and retain strong employees.   It was never the legal responsibility of an employer to take care of their employees, and there is no reason, by the laws of nature or man where such should be the case.  If you get paid you can buy food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, education, diversion or whatever, according to your needs and desires, and it should not be legislated as to how your money should be spent.

NAFTA  I think Trump is correct to think of America first and not structure the trade agreements to benefit other nations.  We should be sensitive to our policies, regulations and taxes, to cause jobs to go out of country.   Many countries sell their goods in our country and do not allow our good to compete in their countries.  Some of the reluctance to sell our beef in Europe is due to the hormones we inject, and perhaps that is proper to not let such in, as the effects are not clear, and our wheat is perhaps causing obesity and addiction issues here, but most of our products are well engineered and tested and should be allowed in other markets without being made uncompetitive by government subsidies in the other country.  That is , fair trade should be fair to the U.S.  business and consumer and worker.

swansont,

http://heavy.com/news/2016/10/jessica-leeds-donald-trump-groped-on-plane-sexually-assaulted-inappropriately-touched-new-york-times-video-1980s-rachel-crooks/

Tells the same story I told, that she was invited up to first class to sit with Trump and she accepted.  I saw an interview with her where she described the situation exactly as depicted in this article, with the additional information that the petting went on for 10 or 15 minutes, and she only left when his hand went up her skirt.  10 or 15 minutes is a long time to sit there with petting going on, to consider the touching unwanted many years later.

Regards, TAR

many times during the election cycle the actions of Hilary while senator and secretary of State were questioned by Republicans, and counter arguments were launched against Trump concerning his actions as a private citizen

Two different areas of life, with different expected behavior, not directly held up against each other.  If Trump as a millionaire treated women as objects, this does not relate directly to his ability to lead a nation, negotiate with world leaders, or challenge the Washington elite.   There are a lot of industries that build up around government largess.  Some of that needs to be rationalized.

 

And in an effort to find out what you people consider the middle ground, I would ask what do you think Hilary would have done about the economy, Syria, ISIS, Iran, the Saudis, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, China, the Ukraine, the border, and the Opioid crisis?

Edited by tar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, waitforufo said:

So Republicans equal Nazi's in your mind? 

I never said that. But at this point I'm not surprised that you would pose the question.

15 hours ago, waitforufo said:

Your above statement is completely unhinged.  

Trump has never denounced the white supremacists without later backtracking, and they are giddy at that kind of response. 

15 hours ago, waitforufo said:

Perhaps you are too young or have forgotten just how bad stagflation was under Jimmy Carter.  Stagflation was and economic phenomenon that economists thought was impossible.  Combined inflation and unemployment.  Reagan gambled that the nation could take the pain of correcting this situation.  He was correct and the nation rewarded him with a second term. 

More distraction from the topic. Whenever you get caught making an unsupported claim, it seems like it's off to some new discussion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tar said:

Taxes I want to see simplified progressive taxes where low income people  pay little and large income people pay a lot and middle income pay a reasonable amount, with sta ndard deductions to everybody to account for charity and local taxes and such.  Most important is to not penalize small businesses for making money, or to take larger amounts from capital gains income.  Now in my time of life my money is working for me.  It is still my money.  If I benefit from interest or dividends or appreciated value, it should be my money to spend to live. My money is capital for mortgages, car loans, student loans and business loans.  I should be paid a little to loan it out.  Those gains are honest gains,

You failed to address a single policy or change currently being considered. What some the corporate tax rate be should there be any caveats to that rate? Should every tax cut be covered by a spending cut to ensure the deficit isn't increased; if so what do we cut? Should we reduction or eliminate the ability for individuals to deduct their local and state taxes? What should be the income tax rate and how should be tier by income or should it? 

To find middle ground policy must be addressed. It simple isn't enough vaguely say you want to see "simplified" or "reasonable" changes. Those words are relative and mean little outside of your own mind. Put your big boy pants on an plant some goal post indicating what the fields size is and what constitutes a score. 

2 hours ago, tar said:

Healthcare is a mess.  I don't think people should be forced by law to buy insurance.  Neither do I think the government should be responsible for everyone's health care.   People should be in charge of their own lives, make decisions to have babies or smoke or skydive or have unsafe sex or get a procedure or not.  Neither do I think it is the responsibility of an employer to provide healthcare.   Initially strong corporations offered health care plans as a benefit to attract and retain strong employees.   It was never the legal responsibility of an employer to take care of their employees, and there is no reason, by the laws of nature or man where such should be the case.  If you get paid you can buy food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, education, diversion or whatever, according to your needs and desires, and it should not be legislated as to how your money should be spent.

Again, not one single piece of policy addressed. There can be no middle ground between if you lack the insight or honesty to just say specifically what it is you want. Should the ACA mandate be repealed? Should be eliminate medicare or reduce subsidizes for it? Should any employers be required to provide insurance and if so what are the caveats? Should hospitals be able to turn away those with out insurance? How should bankruptcy with regard to medical bill debt be structured?

2 hours ago, tar said:

NAFTA  I think Trump is correct to think of America first and not structure the trade agreements to benefit other nations.  We should be sensitive to our policies, regulations and taxes, to cause jobs to go out of country.   Many countries sell their goods in our country and do not allow our good to compete in their countries.  Some of the reluctance to sell our beef in Europe is due to the hormones we inject, and perhaps that is proper to not let such in, as the effects are not clear, and our wheat is perhaps causing obesity and addiction issues here, but most of our products are well engineered and tested and should be allowed in other markets without being made uncompetitive by government subsidies in the other country.  That is , fair trade should be fair to the U.S.  business and consumer and worker.

Trump has mentioned a 20% tariff on all products from Mexico do you agree or not? Should we (U.S. govt) provide tax cuts and other incentives to keep business from leaving the country and or bring back jobs; If so how does that square with you position on taxes and what would the caveats be for keeping and or bring back a job? Is Trump currently re-negotiating NAFTA or just saying at some point he'd like to? If he is re-negotiating can you explain a single specific part of what he is looking to eliminate or change?

Beef is the least efficient major source of protein which exists. It requires significantly more land, water, and energy to produce a calorie of beef than it does to produce a calorie of pork or chicken. That is easy to see on display in the "free market" where the average cost of a pound of beef is double that of chicken or pork even with Beef being the most heavily govt subsidized form of protein( BTW, how do those subsidizes fit into your tax policy ideas? ). Of course using more land, water, and energy to produce also means a greater carbon foot print and overall environmental impact, assuming that matters to you at all which it might not. Considering the inefficiency of beef I don't think my government should be wasting time and money trying to force other countries to change their laws so we can sell them beef. We can get more out or land and resources stateside with other agriculture products than an expansion in the beef industry.

The below link show the math for the efficiency of Beef, Pork  ,Poultry, eggs, milk, and etc.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/105002

16 hours ago, waitforufo said:

So Republicans equal Nazi's in your mind?  Your above statement is completely unhinged.

In the U.S. all or even most Republicans are NOT Nazi's, White Nationalists, or etc. That said most Nazi's, White Nationalists, and etc in the U.S. vote Republican and identify as conservatives. That is a fact and one I think too many self identifying Republicans and conservatives are overly dismissive of. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ten Oz,

I failed to write legislation, and that is your problem with my position?  That is what the people we elected to congress are there for, to govern.  Currently the only policy the dems have is resist, or impeach.   It is those folks that need to make the hard choices and flesh out the middle ground so that we all can move forward. Make the compromises required to pay the bills. save the world and keep our country rich and strong.  It is folly for the dems to think the world could be saved without the capital, technology and systems in place in our corporations and private businesses.  These entities are not the "rich" that the tax breaks are benefiting at the expense of the poor.  These people are the ones growing the food, building the dams, shipping in resources from around the world, building the factories and airports and ports that make the place tick.  The rich are not our enemy, the rich are all of us in this country.  Our weakest are fatter and more comfortable than the strongest in some countries.  (not literally, but on the whole the case, as there are areas in some countries where shanty towns and filth flowing down the street is easy to find, where most areas of this country, the U.S.A. have indoor plumbing and heated buildings and fully stocked grocery stores, hospitals, universities, hardware stores and gas stations within a short drive, if not walk.

 

My position is not that we should eat and the rest of the world should starve.  My position is that if I cut down the forest, moved the rocks, plowed and harrowed the fields, planted the grass, and raised some sheep or cows or goats on it, then it is me that gets to choose whether I milk the cow or eat it.   As a society we have parsed things out and arranged things so that we can both eat bacon and eggs for breakfast, and chicken salad for lunch, and a steak for dinner with ice cream for desert.  Other countries can arrange their lives in the same manner should they make the effort.  We have built dams and pumped water from the aquafer to accomplish our way of life.   Others can copy us or do it their own way, but I don't need to eat kelp to save the world for someone else.

Consider a hungry child in an other country.   Where are her neighbors, where are her parents, where are the good people in her country that should be finding her something to eat?   It is not on me.

The growing population is stressing the Earth.  Each human should produce children at the rate they can manage and take responsibility for, given limited resources.  There is not a moral commandment to provide for others before you provide for your own.  

I retain the right to keep my way of life, regardless of the fact that others are not as well off.   If my country is structured to be a better place to live than another then if you are the other, copy me.  If your country is a better place to live then here, then maintain the way of life you have built.  There is no moral commandment that says because of Imperialism, the West should eat Kelp so former colonies can eat corn.  It actually has turned out that because of imperialism we have a global community.

Regards, TAR

As an aside, to illustrate that we are fighting against our selves and not looking to inhabit the middle ground, I was researching who owns the media, to figure out how and why we are so polarized and why people that watch Fox view people that watch CNBC as the enemy and vice-a-versa.  My wife used to work for Time Inc. and Meredith publishing that has the market of magazines for women cornered, bought them for 1.3 billion.   I looked to find out who owns Meredith and the biggest owners are financial investment houses, primarily related to Black Rock.  Going further I keep getting back to a single owner, a private group called Wellington, with a Trillion dollars of assets.    I am pretty sure that what you and I think has a lot to do with what the Wellington group thinks we should think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, tar said:

Consider a hungry child in an other country.   Where are her neighbors, where are her parents, where are the good people in her country that should be finding her something to eat?   It is not on me.

You regularly amaze me with the ignorance you show of how the world works. Do you not think the mother would feed the child if she could? Maybe she doesn't bother because she is black and lazy eh? You are either wilfully ignorant of the plight of the poor or just plain incapable of understanding their problems.

 

15 minutes ago, tar said:

I failed to write legislation, and that is your problem with my position? 

He or someone asked you to say what policies the pres has implemented that impressed you so much as you were saying how great he was.  What policies has he bought in that make him so great in your eyes?  We don't want to know what he has tweeted or said in a speech....  what has he actually done legislatively? I think that was the question - apologies if I am wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, tar said:

I failed to write legislation, and that is your problem with my position?  That is what the people we elected to congress are there for, to govern. 

You failed to even address policy nevermind write it. We elect Representative to govern and it is their responsibility to formally write legislation but who holds them accountable; us (the people). To hold them accountable we must understand what they are doing. So avoiding the nuts and bolts of which policies are being considered is an irresponsible position in my opinion. 

21 minutes ago, tar said:

My position is not that we should eat and the rest of the world should starve.  My position is that if I cut down the forest, moved the rocks, plowed and harrowed the fields, planted the grass, and raised some sheep or cows or goats on it, then it is me that gets to choose whether I milk the cow or eat it.

You advocated that our government encourage other countries to change their laws so that U.S. beef can be more easily sold in their country. You listed it as something you'd like to see included in our trade policy. It is that position I addressed. If you want to purchase land and raise cows no one in stopping you. It is legal for you to do so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The president does not make the legislation.  He asks for it to be made.  He wants to repeal and replace Obama care, simplify and lower taxes to promote business and reclaim money that has flowed offshore to avoid our punishing tax code,  build a wall to prevent illegal entry of drugs and human traffic into our nation.  He has asked for these things, pushed for these things and given reason for these things.   If the dems don't want to give up progressive goals, and block the legislation at every turn, it is not the president's fault that nothing is getting done.

Ten Oz,

I did not advocate other countries changing their laws to allow our beef.  I brought it up that there are reasons for other countries to ban some of our imports, but not reason to block our other very vetted and tested products in other areas.

Regards, TAR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, tar said:

He wants to repeal and replace Obama care

Replace it with what?

7 minutes ago, tar said:

simplify and lower taxes to promote business

How?

7 minutes ago, tar said:

reclaim money that has flowed offshore to avoid our punishing tax code, 

How?

8 minutes ago, tar said:

build a wall to prevent illegal entry of drugs and human traffic into our nation

Who will pay for this; if us should there be additional taxes or spending cuts to offset that cut?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He also campaigned on infrastructure spending, more sensible trade deals and deals with Iran...all things that he is having trouble moving in congress because the dems have a very unsensible no vote prior even reading the proposed legislation.   Nancy famously said we would read what was in Obamacare AFTER we passed it, so please don't use the argument that the republican legislation is brought in the night.

The tea party shutting down government under Obama is no less stupid and non-middle ground seeking, than the dems current stance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, tar said:

  Currently the only policy the dems have is resist, or impeach.

Sure, if you just ignore the bipartisan policies they want to implement. IOW ignore the things that contradict your claim. The ol' Texas sharpshooter fallcy.

39 minutes ago, tar said:

 My position is not that we should eat and the rest of the world should starve.  My position is that if I cut down the forest, moved the rocks, plowed and harrowed the fields, planted the grass, and raised some sheep or cows or goats on it, then it is me that gets to choose whether I milk the cow or eat it.

Meanwhile, you live in a country that is subject to its constitution (in theory, at least). I thought we were discussing the latter, and not the fairy tale of the former.

 

39 minutes ago, tar said:

I retain the right to keep my way of life, regardless of the fact that others are not as well off.   If my country is structured to be a better place to live than another then if you are the other, copy me.  If your country is a better place to live then here, then maintain the way of life you have built.  There is no moral commandment that says because of Imperialism, the West should eat Kelp so former colonies can eat corn.  It actually has turned out that because of imperialism we have a global community.

I'm guessing you have to use kelp as an example because all the straw has been used up in your arguments

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ten oz said:

Replace it with what?

How?

How?

Who will pay for this; if us should there be additional taxes or spending cuts to offset that cut?

A structure that allows people to buy as little or as much coverage as they desire, unencumbered by mandates and fines for not purchasing insurance.

By getting the medical community together with the insurers, the hospitals and doctors and structuring a system that works.

Perhaps if we put a 20% tariff on goods coming in from Mexico, we can pay for the wall.

The thought is, as in trickle down, that if employers have more money to spend, they will spend it on research and development, productivity improvements, and wages and salaries, thus spurring the economy and increasing tax receipts, across the board, plus repatriating 20% of off shore income is better than getting 40 percent of zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, tar said:

 Nancy famously said we would read what was in Obamacare AFTER we passed it, so please don't use the argument that the republican legislation is brought in the night.

Oh, FFS. That was after about a year of open discussion and examination, referring to ACTUAL loopholes. This is disingenuous, even for you.

2 minutes ago, tar said:

 The thought is, as in trickle down, that if employers have more money to spend, they will spend it on research and development, productivity improvements, and wages and salaries, thus spurring the economy and increasing tax receipts, across the board, plus repatriating 20% of off shore income is better than getting 40 percent of zero.

Except when we've done this in the past, this is not what happened. On what basis can you argue that it will happen this time? Certainly not from listening to CEOs telling us what they'll do. They've already told us they will buy back shares and give dividends to their shareholders. Not hiring, not wage increases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Sure, if you just ignore the bipartisan policies they want to implement. IOW ignore the things that contradict your claim. The ol' Texas sharpshooter fallcy.

Meanwhile, you live in a country that is subject to its constitution (in theory, at least). I thought we were discussing the latter, and not the fairy tale of the former.

 

I'm guessing you have to use kelp as an example because all the straw has been used up in your arguments

 

So Swansont,  did the lady that sat with Trump in first class consent to the groping for many minutes and decide to leave when it got to heavy, as I said, or does the incident amount to rape and require the removal of our president from office?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tar said:

A structure that allows people to buy as little or as much coverage as they desire, unencumbered by mandates and fines for not purchasing insurance.

We aren't starting from scratch. Can you please explain the policy changes required for the "structure"?

 

2 minutes ago, tar said:

Perhaps if we put a 20% tariff on goods coming in from Mexico, we can pay for the wall.

Thank you! Finally an actual purposed policy idea you acknowledge. 

 

4 minutes ago, tar said:

The thought is

I do my taxes at the end of the year on "thoughts". I do them based on laws. You need to get a lot more specific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, swansont said:

Oh, FFS. That was after about a year of open discussion and examination, referring to ACTUAL loopholes. This is disingenuous, even for you.

Except when we've done this in the past, this is not what happened. On what basis can you argue that it will happen this time? Certainly not from listening to CEOs telling us what they'll do. They've already told us they will buy back shares and give dividends to their shareholders. Not hiring, not wage increases.

I have been in corporate America, (a Japanese owned company) and I remember a year were we will losing money and Japan was keeping us open.  I was smoking a cigarette and looking out in the parking lot at hundreds of late model cars, each representing an employee with a family that supported the local shoe maker, day care, grocery store...etc.  I decided that we were winning, just by being in business.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tar said:

did the lady that sat with Trump in first class consent to the groping

Politicians run for office and upon being elected are paid to work on legislation and advocate for policy. People to not paid to board planes of do so with expectation of being sexually harassed. This is a false equivalent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, tar said:

 

swansont,

http://heavy.com/news/2016/10/jessica-leeds-donald-trump-groped-on-plane-sexually-assaulted-inappropriately-touched-new-york-times-video-1980s-rachel-crooks/

Tells the same story I told, that she was invited up to first class to sit with Trump and she accepted.  I saw an interview with her where she described the situation exactly as depicted in this article, with the additional information that the petting went on for 10 or 15 minutes, and she only left when his hand went up her skirt. 

Not the same story. Doesn't say she was invited to sit with Trump, just that she was invited to take a seat in first class. Previously you claimed she was invited by Trump and that they kissed. None of that has been substantiated by your link.

6 hours ago, tar said:

10 or 15 minutes is a long time to sit there with petting going on, to consider the touching unwanted many years later.

That's not your call to make. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.