JrzyTmata wrote: 
It's the coke.

 Beaker wrote: 
That was a good one.

The moderators lack control of this. I think that there should be a timed microphone shut off where it's emotionless and neutral and consistent. 

Don still has the sniffles

 kcar wrote: 
Again I draw your attention to your reading comprehension ... (and yes he has. WTF is "butt-hutt"? 

A couple of things.  I believe the term is butt hurt ...  and the other is, I have never used that term.  If I have please show me where.  I've been insulted and personally attacked by the best and worst here for many years.  It comes with the territory of holding the views I have.  You get points without hurting your regards as a poster for attacking those on the right side of the aisle.  Its a blood sport here.  I have a thick skin.

I would argue the opposite on taking one's civic responsibilities seriously being a Trump supporter.  I see it as my civic duty to stop the status quo any way I can.  If it takes Trump to do it, so be it.  You apparently see it as your civic duty to maintain the status quo anyway you can by electing Hillary Clinton.

Notice how Trump seems to scare everyone on both the right and left establishments ?  That's good in my world.  It shows me he has a plan that has them so scared they will join forces and do anything they can to stop him so they can remain in power.  The only group of people supporting Trump are those who do not have a seat at the table.  

What Bill did 20 and 30 years ago have little to do with the economy today, you're right.  But I've had a problem with Bill from the beginning.  So much so that I voted for Jerry Brown in the 1992 primary.  So my problem with the Clinton's is nothing new.  I've had enough of the Clinton's.  With one, you get the other.  They are inseparable in my world.  That people think Trump should not serve because of his behaviour, well its a lot better than Bill's, which is the standard in place.  Bill is still defended vigorously to the point that many wish they could vote for him, still.
I've also had enough of the Bushes.  41 was actually good in my view, but 43 not.  So I've got half of what I want so far.

Lastly, You and I would gather most Hillary supporters see Trump supporters as racist, xenophobic, bigoted misogynists.  Oh, I forgot intellectually defective, deplorable and morally bankrupt.  But do you know that I and most Trump supporters see Hillary supporters as simply in favor of open public corruption and willing to protect it at any cost so that y'all keep your place on the gravy train, aka status quo ...  

I see Trump as the only one of the 17 running on his side willing and capable of taking on the corruption by not being bought and paid for by those who are corrupt, the establishment, by using his own money so he can tell them, STFU, you don't own me !!!    Hillary on the other hand, is owned and operated by the establishment.  The current wiki leaks confirms all of this including her views on open borders, Wall Street and her insistence of using executive orders to take away gun rights.  Until now, these charges have been ridiculed as conspiracy theories by the usual suspects.  Now they are proven.

So there ...
 

 haresfur wrote: 
Nope. 

Short version:

1. I am not a shill. I support HRC with reservations. I have always posted only my own opinions and will always do so. 

2. Trump is unfit to be President. He is scamming desperate people and destroying the GOP. 

3. I felt I had good reason last night to suspect that kurtster of being a shill.

4. I withdraw my accusation that kurtster is a shill and will not insult him further, even if he insults me.

5. I will not engage in personal attacks with other posters. They corrode good discussions. 

6. I will continue to be honest and opinionated. 

Add-on: I will try to write shorter posts.
Steely_D wrote:  

On or off Eukodol?

 kcar wrote: 
That sounds like something HITLER would say!!

 kcar wrote: 
  : I promise to be good

 islander wrote: 
If you're accusing me of being a shill, you haven't been paying attention. Check out my comments in the "Ask the Libertarian" thread around the last two weeks of September. Would a shill write such long posts about a fringe party and its candidate who has no chance of winning? 

I normally don't write in the forum. I have recently because there's no longer much of a conversation in most of the song comments. That's for me the heart of RP. I've written more in the forum because this election has spiraled into a spectacle and it's a sure way of finding spirited conversation. Once again, voters on both sides feel that their country is at a critical crossroads with a real chance of lurching into complete disaster. The two major parties have lost touch with many of their supporters and it's not clear that the next President will have any way of fighting through gridlock. When you follow American politics these days, you pick up on the fact that many Americans feel that their own lives are in danger of being seriously harmed by the next President. At this point, given the long public histories of Trump and Clinton, the polarization of our politics and the frustrations of voters, it's almost inevitable that supporters or Trump and Clinton are going to be dug in and loud in their opinions. 

I support Hillary Clinton but with serious reservations. She is clearly the most qualified candidate that either party has put up, but the woman triangulates just as much as Bill ever did. She's excessively cautious and private, so it's not clear what she really believes in. The recently leaked Wall Street speeches reinforce this concern: Clinton speaks of needing to have a public and a private position on policy matters, presumably to keep public opposition at bay. She also reassures her audience that bankers are the best group to know how to regulate the banking industry. 

Those speeches and Clinton's refusal to release them fuel real concerns about her judgment. It's likely she felt the need to reassure Wall Street in order to get campaign donations from the finance industry but it should have been clear to her that the speeches were never going to remain private and that trying to keep them from the public was just going to add fuel to the fire. Her willingness to intervene in Libya when it the country's precarious state (an out-of-touch leader, bitter tribal, religious and regional divisions, an over-reliance on oil revenue that promotes corruption and economic volatility, and ready access to weapons via external patron states like Iran and Saudi Arabia) was shockingly naive: those conditions I listed within the parentheses also describe pre-war Iraq. Libya was likely to become a difficult situation even had we not intervened but I think Clinton was foolishly aggressive.

Compared to the other candidates, though, Clinton is the best prepared and most detailed in her policy positions (you could lose yourself for a day or two in her policy details). Bernie captured left-wing frustration but he had no realistic way of paying for free healthcare and free college education. He has very little record of achievement in 25 years of Congress. The Republican candidates were largely muppets, trapped in a blind loyalty to a pseudo-Reagan ideology (contrary to the vision of Reagan now, he raised taxes, increased the size of government and deficit drastically, intervened aggressively in international relations and offered amnesty to illegal immigrants). 

Trump was the worst of the Republican lot, though. He's a narcissistic liar with a history of ripping people off and a total lack of political experience. I understand that many people are still hurting financially but Trump has shown nothing beyond loud words that he can and will help their lot. As I've posted before, Trump's verbal and physical treatment of women is the least of his problems. His party has denounced him (Ryan and McConnell have but not enough) and many GOP leaders have called on Trump to step down. He is destroying the long-term viability of the GOP with his statements about minorities and women.

Trump is a full-blown sociopath. He has no business being the presidential nominee of the GOP. His nomination showed me that many Americans don't take their civic responsibilities seriously and that the Republican party is badly broken. (I also think that Hillary Clinton's nomination shows that the Democratic leadership needs to allow voters to become more involved with the nomination process. HRC has become too involved in the art of political machinations and by her own admission has lost touch with the lives of average Americans.)  

Islander, if you still think I'm a shill then PM me and we can discuss the matter further. 

When kurtster posted that he was more concerned with Bill Clinton's behavior than Donald's, I was surprised. Bill isn't running for President. What Bill did or didn't do decades ago is irrelevant to our economy and kurtster has complained vigorously about the economy. Trump is finally involved in a huge controversy about his behavior and it struck me that kurtster was trying to divert attention from that—something that a paid shill would do. I couldn't think of another reason kurtster would try to drive the focus of the discussion to Bill. 

I withdraw my implication that kurtster is a shill. I will stop insulting him. It'd be nice if he stopped insulting me (and yes he has. WTF is "butt-hutt"? ) but I won't insult him even if he insults me again. Steely_D is right about sticking to the strength of your argument and not insulting people. Personal insults slowly destroy the readability and value of discussion boards.  

 Steely_D wrote: 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
There is a bit of poking the bear in this. Which is what drove people to leave RP four and eight years ago: the incessant "you're an idiot" "no you're the idiot."

I think it's totally within bounds to say
"My candidate rules; yours drools."

I think it's completely out of bounds to say
"You're an idiot because we disagree."

Wise men are swayed by the rightness of the argument. Make a good case, and stop bullying and insulting for any reason and any of us could be having an insightful dialogue. There are things about *pick a topic* that might not be on my radar because of my location, political environment, background, religion, whatever. I could learn something. 
But the moment folks start telling me I'm an idiot or deluded or whatever - about politics or music or finance or cooking or whatever - IDGAF about what comes after that. It didn't need to become personal. 

 kcar wrote: 
We have a pretty good history here, and have dealt with several shills over the years.  So many in fact that we developed a checklist:

• Username GolfRomeo
• Shows up in an election year
• posts first and predominantly in the political threads
• maintains a one sided view, supported by popular talking points
• has a smattering of song ratings that don't really make sense
• has limited song comments
• from the forum around new years

 kcar wrote: 
Then stop directing your posts at them. This particular discussion is stupid, and it's all your fault. 
 
BTDT, by the way. 

 kurtster wrote: 



 Again, I only skim what you and Beaker post since you two write so little worth reading. Work on your own reading comprehension. I could click on his link and/or look around, but I'm about to hit the hay... 

kurtster, I don't need a phone—but thanks, buddy! Oh, and if the Trump campaign is paying you, make sure you get cash in advance. Trump has a history of stiffing people. Maybe you'll make it as big as Trump someday and can grab any woman's whatever just because you feel like it—just like Don! 

 Beaker wrote: 

Millions of people disagree with your political views. That doesn't make them moral monsters.

 
That headline is from something you posted in the other thread. I didn't read it (edit: Oh, right, I did too); I assume it's a valid-enough statement (mm-hm), and the link here is good too. Finally, people are beginning to come up with storylines that put Trump himself to the side and present the problems their supporters think he will help with. They may be right. But something in this article made me think of the "moral monsters" quote and that's true enough because it's a Venn diagram. I am wrong for seeing a Trump sticker and thinking "so you're a racist asshole" without knowing the person's story. But that doesn't change the fact that I know some racist assholes in real life and they're voting for Trump. So you can see the dilemma. Trump might actually be able to represent some good people well. It's still important to stop and wonder why some of the most profoundly horrible people in the country also think he represents them. Those people aren't anti-Hillary as much as the woman in the link above: they're very much pro-Trump. That should concern people. Obviously, there are people you and I don't like who are Hillary supporters, some are pretty vile, I'm sure. But right now it's mostly Trump who has the significant chunk of supporters who you and I think need to crawl back under their rocks.

This guy: a nice guy (brings cookies to my office) but: is racist like it's 1955.
 

 kcar wrote: 
  He's not voting.  There is a good reason why, too.  You're not very good with your reading comprehension, are you.

And you are pretty easy if you shill for just a phone ...

 Beaker wrote: 
Beaker, I'm so sorry. I read newspapers and magazines and like to deal with reality. You? Not so much...

You make a fetish of pretending not to be for Trump (or anyone, AFAIK). I did like the meme picture of Gary Johnson (What is pussy?) you posted. But I can't recall when you posted anything else worth reading.

Correct me if I'm wrong but...You hate Clinton. You don't like Johnson. You don't think much of Trump. 

Are you the one guy supporting Jill Stein?

If you don't write anything worth reading and can't even figure out which candidate you're going to vote for, why are you even posting in the Trump and 2016 Election topic discussions?  

Sorry about Donald's campaign implosion. Have a super weekend.  

 kurtster wrote: 
Bill Clinton isn't running for President. He left office about 16 years ago. 
 
 Bill Clinton AFAIK was accused of rape by one woman, Juanita Broaddrick. Two other women accused Clinton of sexual harassment. 

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

 One last time: 

You're the guy who keeps crying about illegal immigrants and a tough economy. You claim to seriously think that Trump can and will help you if elected President. 

Trump has

• no political experience
• almost no allies within either party in Washington
• no credible or substantive policy ideas that would help you
• a proven track record of ripping people off
• a tax reform plan that would largely help the 1% and real estate developers
• a tariff-oriented economic plan that would push the economy into recession
• an unintelligible "plan" for our health care industry
• a creepy man-crush for Vladimir Putin
• a lousy record as a businessman
• a long trail of racist, sexist, and xenophobic comments and actions
• the attention span of a flea and an uncontrollable urge to rant

The talk about grabbing women's pussies just because he can? That's the least of Trump's failings. 

 kurtster, you should do something better with your Saturday than trying to defend the World's Biggest Douchebag. You may have very real issues in your life that responsible people in Washington could help you with, but it should be painfully obvious to you by now that if your buddy Trump becomes President, you'll be joining a VERY long line of people who gut suckered by Trump.  

 

Ryan bailed on a campaign appearance in Wisconsin, and now Pence. Donnie is DONE. *Nelson laugh*

 kcar wrote: 
There's got to be a lot more out there I bet.  

At least as far as we know Trump's sex was consensual.  

Bill OTOH, has been accused of rape 3 times.  

There is a tad bit of difference there, wouldn't you agree ?  And Hillary further embedded the rape culture we have today by demonizing Bill's accusers.  Remember Hillary's remarks about being broke when they left the White House ?  It was mostly because of a $850K settlement to one of Bill's non consensual victims, Paula Jones.

 kurtster wrote: 
They can't be paying you enough to shill for Trump. See if you can get a degree from Trump University for free. 

Bill isn't running for President. He fooled around with Monica Lewinsky 20 years ago while he was doing a great job as President. This 2005 tape of Trump is just the rotten cherry on the garbage heap of Trump's bigotry, sexism, viciousness and world-class sleaziness.

But maybe you're so impressed with Trump's net operating loss of $916 million. His accountant had to explain to Trump how he could turn that loss into income tax adjustments, btw. Trump didn't understand the tax code, according to the accountant. 

And if you think Trump is just talk about harassing women then you are deeply, badly uninformed. 

Here, chew on this with your buddy/doppelganger Beaker:

Source: Trump attempted boardroom kiss

 A friend whom CNN anchor Erin Burnett has known for years recounted an experience she had with Trump in 2010 that echoes his words in the tape that surfaced Friday.

...But talking about how you “can do anything” to beautiful women “when you’re a star,” including “grab them by the pussy” is not locker room banter, it’s describing committing sexual assault. And Trump was actually accused in a lawsuit of doing exactly that.


 But Trump respects women so much! Including his daughter oh wait...

 
 Trump told Howard Stern it's OK to call Ivanka a 'piece of a—'

In the 2004 interview with Stern, Trump tells the host that "My daughter is beautiful, Ivanka," to which Stern interjects, “by the way, your daughter.” Trump finishes Stern’s sentence by repeating “she’s beautiful.”

“Can I say this? A piece of ass,” Stern says in the clip. “Yeah,” Trump replies.

...

Among the other clips from Stern’s radio show unearthed by CNN is one in which Trump says “check out time” for relationships with women is when they turn 35. In another, he discusses having sex with women who are menstruating and in yet another, he brags about having had group sex.