In Trump ....We Trust

[t hedge coke]

Let's not forget - not let it be forgotten - this wasn't casual, innocent convo accidentally or maliciously captured. He was on camera for a show. He knew they were taping. And he's badmouthing and plotting assault on people they're working with.

No matter how many women come forward and say he did just what he's bragging about and they didn't like it or consent, those are the people who'll still insist "it was consent! Donald said so and his voice is the one that matters!" Either because they're genuinely ignorant, or because they're a rapey bastard. Or, something between.

Nope. The need for prior consent to touch someone's genitals is not ambiguous. It's scary that you think that.

It helped him with rapists and rape apologists, I guess.

I think, unfortunately, that's exactly what it means: There are way more people under-informed about consent in America than we'd like to admit, and some of them are rapey A.F.

[Shawn Hopkins]

This article is... disgusting. It makes Trump's campaign look like a legitimate political movement.

This is pretty bad. We're going to need to make examples of more people than I initially thought.

You're kinda over the line. We don't need to make examples of people. We need to do what we should have done and vote instead of whining or protesting or staying home. Only about 26 percent of eligible voters voted for Trump.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Let's not forget - not let it be forgotten - this wasn't casual, innocent convo accidentally or maliciously captured. He was on camera for a show. He knew they were taping. And he's badmouthing and plotting assault on people they're working with.

No matter how many women come forward and say he did just what he's bragging about and they didn't like it or consent, those are the people who'll still insist "it was consent! Donald said so and his voice is the one that matters!" Either because they're genuinely ignorant, or because they're a rapey bastard. Or, something between.



I think, unfortunately, that's exactly what it means: There are way more people under-informed about consent in America than we'd like to admit, and some of them are rapey A.F.

"Somebody's doing the raping," to quote a future President.

[ImprobableQuestion]

You're kinda over the line. We don't need to make examples of people. We need to do what we should have done and vote instead of whining or protesting or staying home. Only about 26 percent of eligible voters voted for Trump.

I did vote. I did my part. But I live in New Jersey, and that was never going to go red. The fact is that if we're going to undermine him we're going to need to go lower. And if we're going to fix everything he breaks were going to need to get our hands very, very dirty. We have an easily confirmable list of judges, politicians, government workers foreign and domestic, and corporate moguls who stood by and let this happen. They need to know the consequences of this. This means lack of funding, expatriation, committal to mental institutions, anything that gets the message through their thick skulls. I'd cut 100% of federal funding to Michigan and Wisconsin if I didnt think that would only spawn more malcontents. We're about to see how things are done the Trump way. After he's gone we'll need to be merciless in showing them the right way.

[Shawn Hopkins]

I did vote. I did my part. But I live in New Jersey, and that was never going to go red. The fact is that if we're going to undermine him we're going to need to go lower. And if we're going to fix everything he breaks were going to need to get our hands very, very dirty. We have an easily confirmable list of judges, politicians, government workers foreign and domestic, and corporate moguls who stood by and let this happen. They need to know the consequences of this. This means lack of funding, expatriation, committal to mental institutions, anything that gets the message through their thick skulls. I'd cut 100% of federal funding to Michigan and Wisconsin if I didnt think that would only spawn more malcontents. We're about to see how things are done the Trump way. After he's gone we'll need to be merciless in showing them the right way.

Yep, you're way over the line. This might be the worst course possible, short of assassinations.

[ImprobableQuestion]

Yep, you're way over the line. This might be the worst course possible, short of assassinations.

I can't trust them to be representative members of our government, so I don't want them here. That sentiment worked out pretty well for Donald Trump.

[numberthirty]

Since we didn't really get out and make the case to the voters, having our political rivals institutionalized is a perfectly rational strategy...

Very interesting.

[ImprobableQuestion]

Since we didn't really get out and make the case to the voters, having our political rivals institutionalized is a perfectly rational strategy...

Very interesting.

What other case was there to make? "My opponent is a racist. I am not." Trump regularly said so many asanine, thunderously bigoted things on camera that they based an entire ad campaign out of playing them almost without commentary.

There are opinions held by the opposition that are utterly deranged, and are dangerous to have out in the open. How could you possibly describe a Climate Denier other than mentally disturbed?

[JBatmanFan05]

DOE, science jobs, and social services are on his radar for massive cuts.

Both of us got letters in November saying "prepare your butts."

Letters from whom?.. if you don't mind me asking since they might have been premature and/or politically-motivated scare letters to try to ensure Hillary gets the govt EE vote. From a larger perspective, anyone working in the govt assumes the risk that different ruling parties with clear upfront policies on certain politically-charged areas can cost you your job. Republicans are much less big govt people and big regulation and they're about lowering taxes. Republicans lose jobs and Republican-driven sector EE's lose jobs at the state and federal level when Dems win.

Interesting Q: Do you think all govt EE's should vote based on the candidate that offers the best chance of them keeping their particular job? So if the Repub Party is opposed to bigger govt, then all govt EEs should always vote Dem because they're more likely to have their jobs protected? Forget larger nation/taxpayer-affecting policy and just vote to protect your jobs?

[TheInvisibleMan]

Letters from whom?.. if you don't mind me asking since they might have been premature and/or politically-motivated scare letters to try to ensure Hillary gets the govt EE vote. From a larger perspective, anyone working in the govt assumes the risk that different ruling parties with clear upfront policies on certain politically-charged areas can cost you your job. Republicans are much less big govt people and big regulation and they're about lowering taxes. Republicans lose jobs and Republican-driven sector EE's lose jobs at the state and federal level when Dems win.

Interesting Q: Do you think all govt EE's should vote based on the candidate that offers the best chance of them keeping their particular job? So if the Repub Party is opposed to bigger govt, then all govt EEs should always vote Dem because they're more likely to have their jobs protected? Forget larger nation/taxpayer-affecting policy and just vote to protect your jobs?

their stances on abortion. same sex marriage, and state referendums on marijuana say otherwise

[Carabas]

Letters from whom?.. if you don't mind me asking since they might have been premature and/or politically-motivated scare letters to try to ensure Hillary gets the govt EE vote. From a larger perspective, anyone working in the govt assumes the risk that different ruling parties with clear upfront policies on certain politically-charged areas can cost you your job. Republicans are much less big govt people and big regulation and they're about lowering taxes. Republicans lose jobs and Republican-driven sector EE's lose jobs at the state and federal level when Dems win.

Interesting Q: Do you think all govt EE's should vote based on the candidate that offers the best chance of them keeping their particular job? So if the Repub Party is opposed to bigger govt, then all govt EEs should always vote Dem because they're more likely to have their jobs protected? Forget larger nation/taxpayer-affecting policy and just vote to protect your jobs?

Sorry, stupid question perhaps, but does EE stand for in this context?

[JBatmanFan05]

Sorry, stupid question perhaps, but does EE stand for in this context?

Abbreviation for employee.

[t hedge coke]

Do you think all govt EE's should vote based on the candidate that offers the best chance of them keeping their particular job? So if the Repub Party is opposed to bigger govt, then all govt EEs should always vote Dem because they're more likely to have their jobs protected?

Let's be clear: the poster said, "DOE, science jobs, and social services," not "government."

Republicans aren't in favor of fewer congressmen or fewer mayors. They don't cut military. They don't cut their own salaries.

They cut Education. They cut the EPA and other science-based operations. They cut social services. That's what they cut. Not government. Education and care taking services.

Painting that as downsizing of government is disingenuous, as is suggesting that the only reason we should care about educational services or environmental protection are so people can keep getting paychecks.

[JBatmanFan05]

Let's be clear: the poster said, "DOE, science jobs, and social services," not "government."

Republicans aren't in favor of fewer congressmen or fewer mayors. They don't cut military. They don't cut their own salaries.

They cut Education. They cut the EPA and other science-based operations. They cut social services. That's what they cut. Not government. Education and care taking services.

If you're employed by the government, it's a government job (in the sense I'm asking about for the later question). Republicans don't cut military or they do less often, you're right, Dems do. Like nobody cuts Congressmen or Mayors because you often can't (or not too easily), laws and constitutions and legislature and everything. That's where I was coming from: Regime changes always bring govt job losses (and/or gains), especially when govt size is a political issue, or govt sectors/depts like the military are more/less (on a spectrum of degree) politicized, you assume that risk in govt employment. My questions to BeastieRunner remain, I'm genuinely curious what govt employees think when it comes to that. Would they/should they not vote for candidate they otherwise preferred if they felt that candidate more risks their job?

[Shawn Hopkins]

Hey "socially liberal" Trump fans! What do you think Trump's own-, er, buddy Putin did when he heard that the United Nations was gonna honor former outgoing Secretary General Ban-ki Moon for his work promoting LGBT rights? Full-throatedly endorse it? Nooooo.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...on-lgbt-rights

Russia has prevented the United Nations security council from thanking outgoing secretary general Ban Ki-moon specifically for promoting gay rights during his decade in office, diplomats said.

In fact, the guy Trump so admires has made his country hell for the LGBT and you "socially liberal" Trump fans can expect similar here as Trump panders to the people who put him in power.