@lethologica

that was some awful quote manipulation

"Out of curiosity, what's the problem with an argument in the form of "but Clinton..."? The whole point of the Presidential race is to allow the people to compare on candidate against the other, is it not?"

you're response was

"That it's not a defense of Trump, just an argument for not voting if neither candidate is defensible.

Also, that it's simply not true in this case"

but you IGNORED the second part of his quote

"The whole point of the Presidential race is to allow the people to compare on candidate against the other, is it not?"

@lethologica your stance was:

"that it's simply not true" NO DEBATE. no discussion. It's just "not true."

whereas @Octavious said:

"to allow the people to compare on candidate against the other"

he doesn't even state an opinion, he's only letting people have freedom to look at the evidence themselves.

your attack was unnecessarily critical on his statement, replying "That it's not a defense of Trump" When he never defended him, only that his ideas could be considered

I was once an Obama supporter but reality has caught up with me. There are still reasons to believe he has been better than others, but by and large the system limits all candidates.

Bernie would have tried, and without Congress or the Senate behind him he'd not have gotten very far. Jill Stien will not even get a single electoral vote, even though i'd vote for her before anyone else still in the race.

But yes, Hillary is less bad than Trump.

""Out of curiosity, what's the problem with an argument in the form of "but Clinton..."?"

"That it's not a defense of Trump, just an argument for not voting if neither candidate is defensible.""

Not really following. You're trying to determine who will make the best President, not trying to find a single issue to rule one of them out. If you have a subconscious score chart with various categories, then responding to the argument that Trump is morally bankrupt by pointing out that Clinton is also morally inept is a fair one. Clinton wins, but not by a great deal. The argument moves on to another area in which Trump might have an edge.

As for the video, of course he's a liar. That goes without saying. I have every confidence that both Trump and Clinton have lied repeatedly in this campaign. There is no law as far as I'm aware about lying in a private conversation. There is a law against sexual assault, but without someone who has been assaulted trying to pin anything on Trump is on pretty flimsy ground.

There are many more severe problems to talking like that about women than just "did he act on his actions or naw" - and like he said, chances are he could do that shit and not get caught (which means quite likely he's done it). Horrible, but true and we shouldn't dismiss it as him lying.

@orthaic: " by and large the system limits all candidates."

This. No candidate is ever going to be perfect and accomplish everything. The system is intentionally designed to reward slow incremental effort and compromise. This is a critical thing to recognize. So, we know that Trump is dangerously erratic and misogynstic and a huge friend to giant corporations (being one himself, essentially). Clinton for all her issues has consistently set a course in the direction of expanding opportunity and improving life for a larger number of non super elites. It is ironic that people criticize Clinton for being too close to big donors and corporate interests when her opponent isn't just close to them, he actually is one of them.

But yes, Trump is for all intents and purposes an admitted sex offender. We know the assaulted O'Dell and tried to fire her. We also know about trying to use Jill Harth's partners business debts into extorting her into having sex with him and attempting to rape her. There is growing credibility to the lawsuit alleging he raped a thirteen year old. Pretty indefensible stuff

@Octavious: Trump unfortunately named his victim: Nancy O'Dell. Also other have come forward in court alleging exactly the kind of behavior Trump bragged of, namely Jill Harth and "Katie Johnson". The latter is an alias since she was a minor at the time but she has a sworn affidavit from a witness to the assault. So, this is not flimsy but corroborated

And @octavious: politfact did a study of all 17 GOP candidates and Sanders and Obama of the statements that are subject to factual verification. Of the twenty politicians, the most honest (eg who made the highest proportion of factually correct statements): Hillary Clinton. The most lying candidate (by a good margin over #2), Donald Trump. They're at opposite ends of the lying spectrum.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jun/29/fact-checking-2016-clinton-trump/

All I know is that Hillary is less bad than Trump. His comments from over a decade ago doesn't changer my mind.

Ugh sorry Trump is less bad than Hillary.

And the truth floweth over.

Hillary Clinton used private investigators to track, harass, and blackmail Bill's victims. She said that we shouldn't believe what rape victims say, and she personally worked to destroy their lives.

Can we just say fuck it and let Biden be president?

Or remove term limits and reelect Obama?

No.

and no.

Oh god a 3rd term for Obama? That's a terrible idea.

Lmfao I want to get a good laugh today. ND, I want to know if you think Trump is a better choice than Obama or Biden.

Dude almost anyone would be a better choice then them. *Almost* anyone. Of course trump would be better.

Interesting, ND considering how much of a disgrace most of the lefty liberals think Obama was, what are the issue you have with him?

I can't actually find many liberals criticising Obama, jsut this: https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/14-Facts-About-The-Obama-Presidency-That-Most-People-Dont-Know

As far as i can see, among 'left' leaning critics only Chomsky seems to criticise Obama...

This recording will have little or no effect on Trump's support levels. Asking people to justify supporting Trump while brandishing this recording only entrenches their positions. I suppose it does make you feel superior to them, but I'm not sure you needed the help to begin with. I'm using the plural "you" but I am not above singling anyone out.

In my view, there are two kinds of people: the ones who like Trump, and those who don't. (That is, I hardly think anyone is sitting on the fence about him). These are two separate camps with no overlap. No new information is going to change anyone from one camp to another.

The people who don't like Trump have already maxed out their dislike for him (or else come quite close to it) and there's not much left to say about him that would push them further away. And given the mountain of reasons not to like Trump, I expect no one will be inclined to move from hating him to supporting him.

The people who do like Trump support him for a few core reasons, and assassinations of his character do little to affect those core reasons. If I think Trump is going to build a big, beautiful wall, and if this is the one thing I care about in the election, finding out that Trump is a bad person does not change my mind.

Another core constituency would be the people who are on the receiving end of élite condescension. These people weren't educated in the Ivy League schools (or possibly anywhere else) and have been told for the past few decades that they're too stupid to know what's good for them. They've been called backwards idiots, bigots, racists, sexists, whatever else, and whether or not that's true, they resent it.

And the more insults get piled up on Trump, the more they support him. Sure, Trump might himself be a member of the élites, but he hasn't really been treated like one lately. These supporters identify with Trump because they have faced the same élitist condescension.

I like to send people this article: http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism

It reminds us that Trump is a creature created by the so-called progressives in the USA.

Trump is a seventy year old man that still thinks he's a rich frat boy. He's convinced that he is always right and can do anything because he's famous.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-10-07/trump-again-insists-the-exonerated-central-park-five-were-guilty

Trump's reality is unshaken by proof. In his world he's going to be elected president no matter what he says or does. Then he's going to make Nixon's enemies list look small as he goes after anyone that isn't a yes man.

Just because Trump thinks he's right (which he more often than not is), doesn't mean he will assassinate his opponents. Killary, on the other hand, has a long list of assassinated associates.

With so many people in this country, these two are the main option. Nobody like either one them. Who says you have to choose one of them? Why can't we (citizens) take a complete stand. Revolt against this propaganda. Demand a restart. Demand new candidates.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/08/politics/trump-on-howard-stern/index.html

Excuse me while I throw up.

Well he certainly isn't the most family value friendly person too say the least. I would certainly choose Ted Cruz over him at this point, but it's too bad that the opposition is a socialist and cultural Marxist.

Cultural Marxist, I'll give you easily. Socialist, I'd fight the use of the word there, but then modern socialism has ceased to have any coherent or consistent meaning so go for it.

Trump called his daughter a "piece of ass" and proceeded to object her body further - and many other inappropriate things: http://dailym.ai/2dEZsgN

What is a Cultural Marxist? Is it like those hipsters who have Soviet flags hanging in their rooms?