Trump
11 October 2016, 03:39 PM
#241
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Swati, the Pastor had an afternoon off and decided to respond to your post after I sent him your response to his Tweet.
Jimbo, first few lines of your friend's post tells us about her general understanding of my understanding of the world; in terms of sex.
*
I agree with her on this point - some people are bound by*their morals and principles. In fact, I'd go further, everybody is, though*people have varying limits and definitions to their morals and principles. But I must respectfully disagree with her on another. Unless your friend has her head buried in sand I suspect she would agree with me*that the prevailing attitude of the world's people, media, films, books, newspapers, pub gossip and work banter towards limitations placed upon our sexual orientation and activities are generally frowned upon. Take the Bible, for example, which has a lot to say on sex and how it should be enjoyed by a heterosexual couple within the sanctity of marriage. It is hardly the most popular book in the world is it? (Not withstanding sales). This is what I was getting at with the Trump story. A lot of people who engross themselves in gossip magazines, sensual internet sites, lewd music videos, chatter at work, books and soaps - and even the*people who are not directly responsible for creating these things but enjoy them to one extent or another – have readily*condemned Trump for adopting this tantalizing lifestyle for himself.*
At this juncture your friend might argue that this is a totally unfair analysis of human nature and*that most people would disapprove of Trump's actions for breaching the modus operandi of their moral principles "do not harm others". I find this interesting. Does she truly believe that the real problem with Trump's lewdness and promiscuity is that in this instance it was towards a non-consenting married woman whose husband may have been hurt? I hope there's something more to her morality than whether or not someone gets hurt. If not, the logical upshot of living by*this law lands her in 1 of 2 disastrous places:
1.Without a functional legal system. Take, for example, a*person who drives 40mph in a 30mph zone and in doing so harms a pensioner by causing her anxiety when she hears cars zoom by her house. The driver is guilty of braking Traffic Law but is he also guilty because he’s caused someone harm? What if the driver*was speeding because his wife was in the car and needed emergency medical treatment? The matter now becomes rather complex because harm caused to one person (the pensioner) might actually mean good caused to another (the wife). Moreover, take a person who places a coke can in the non-recycling bin which causes harm to a refuse collector who has to pick it out. But what if the person had placed the can there in a moment of panic because someone he loves was choking to death? Should the person have ignored his choking loved one in order to not cause harm to refuse collector? Is he guilty for causing harm? Already the cracks of this moral principle begin to show. It is almost impossible to live by. Here's another example. What if a grandparent*wants to cheer up their grandchildren with their favourite sweets, but 50 years down the road those sweets are the cause of harm to the grandchild's digestive system? *I'm giving silly examples to show that it's unsustainable and sometimes dangerous to think morality can be easily practiced within the sphere of*"don't harm anyone". *Half the time nobody knows what does and what doesn't cause harm. A person addicted to pornography might say that it’s a harmless obsession because it’s private. But soon they might find that what they do in private begins to shape who they are in public - He might become a pervert. It’s naïve to think lines of morality can be so easily be defined.
And if it's unsustainable on silly issues its equally true for more serious ones as well. The husband of the woman Trump tried to seduce may be a domestic monster and losing his wife and family to Trump might*be a source of greater good.*What happens to your friend’s moral principle now? She*agrees that Trump's behaviour is “evil” but what if she learns that his*behaviour causes more good than harm? She ends up having to condone adultery, and at the drop of a hat something evil becomes something good! *Of course there are better means to separate a domestic abuser from his victims than to engage in adultery but that's to miss the point I'm trying to make. What happens to our moral principles and legal system if acts of evil actually cause good to someone somewhere else? One more: Paedophilia is deemed harmful in the West but not in certain places in the East. What ultimate authority does she have to say we are right in the West? I venture to say none whatsoever. This morality appears noble on one level but rather naive on another; it's*actually*shifting sand and totally unsustainable.
2. She ends up having to condone every depraved and obscure culture in the world which deem their immoral practices moral just so long as both parties involved consent to it. Some of these might be:*the marriage and sexual union of young*teens in Tierra del Fuego. The jihadi indoctrination of young boys in Syria. The bestiality performed in countries where sexual union with animals is deified. Hitler's youth. And so on and so forth. All these have or had consenting parties and all believe it is not causing harm!*
Finally, I want you to imagine what happens in a world where your friend's notion of "freedom at the cost of someone else's heartache is a bad one imo"*is actually practiced. Where does it land the aforementioned abused wife whose husband might suffer heartache if she reported him to the police? Where does it land the Jews in WW2 if Hitler’s feelings would be hurt if they*were released from the concentration camps? And finally, back to Trump. If the married woman's choice to reject him and remain free from his advancement caused him heartache, what then?*
Food for thought, at least.*
Rev. O J Batstone.
*
Jimbi, first few lines of your post tell us about your pastor's general understanding of the world; in terms of sex. To be honest with you, not everyone in the world thinks like that about sex. Some people are bound with their morals and principles etc., which, I think, is a good thing. Freedom at the cost of someone else's heartache is a bad one imo. It's like that freebie DT, wanting to do something sexual to someone for his own happiness; to a married woman who doesn't really want to respond to his happiness. He causes her and her husband (if he comes to know about it) a misery. Therefore, I agree with you 100% that Trump's desire for ladies is evil. He's just a dunderhead- not fit to be even nominated as a potential president of a prominent country. Generally speaking (like your pastor), the American world seems to have gone bonkers for even nominating him and supporting him.
PS: I believe your pastor was being sarcastic on Trump and his dunderhead supporters. Your pastor has a good sense of humous.
PS: I believe your pastor was being sarcastic on Trump and his dunderhead supporters. Your pastor has a good sense of humous.
*
I agree with her on this point - some people are bound by*their morals and principles. In fact, I'd go further, everybody is, though*people have varying limits and definitions to their morals and principles. But I must respectfully disagree with her on another. Unless your friend has her head buried in sand I suspect she would agree with me*that the prevailing attitude of the world's people, media, films, books, newspapers, pub gossip and work banter towards limitations placed upon our sexual orientation and activities are generally frowned upon. Take the Bible, for example, which has a lot to say on sex and how it should be enjoyed by a heterosexual couple within the sanctity of marriage. It is hardly the most popular book in the world is it? (Not withstanding sales). This is what I was getting at with the Trump story. A lot of people who engross themselves in gossip magazines, sensual internet sites, lewd music videos, chatter at work, books and soaps - and even the*people who are not directly responsible for creating these things but enjoy them to one extent or another – have readily*condemned Trump for adopting this tantalizing lifestyle for himself.*
At this juncture your friend might argue that this is a totally unfair analysis of human nature and*that most people would disapprove of Trump's actions for breaching the modus operandi of their moral principles "do not harm others". I find this interesting. Does she truly believe that the real problem with Trump's lewdness and promiscuity is that in this instance it was towards a non-consenting married woman whose husband may have been hurt? I hope there's something more to her morality than whether or not someone gets hurt. If not, the logical upshot of living by*this law lands her in 1 of 2 disastrous places:
1.Without a functional legal system. Take, for example, a*person who drives 40mph in a 30mph zone and in doing so harms a pensioner by causing her anxiety when she hears cars zoom by her house. The driver is guilty of braking Traffic Law but is he also guilty because he’s caused someone harm? What if the driver*was speeding because his wife was in the car and needed emergency medical treatment? The matter now becomes rather complex because harm caused to one person (the pensioner) might actually mean good caused to another (the wife). Moreover, take a person who places a coke can in the non-recycling bin which causes harm to a refuse collector who has to pick it out. But what if the person had placed the can there in a moment of panic because someone he loves was choking to death? Should the person have ignored his choking loved one in order to not cause harm to refuse collector? Is he guilty for causing harm? Already the cracks of this moral principle begin to show. It is almost impossible to live by. Here's another example. What if a grandparent*wants to cheer up their grandchildren with their favourite sweets, but 50 years down the road those sweets are the cause of harm to the grandchild's digestive system? *I'm giving silly examples to show that it's unsustainable and sometimes dangerous to think morality can be easily practiced within the sphere of*"don't harm anyone". *Half the time nobody knows what does and what doesn't cause harm. A person addicted to pornography might say that it’s a harmless obsession because it’s private. But soon they might find that what they do in private begins to shape who they are in public - He might become a pervert. It’s naïve to think lines of morality can be so easily be defined.
And if it's unsustainable on silly issues its equally true for more serious ones as well. The husband of the woman Trump tried to seduce may be a domestic monster and losing his wife and family to Trump might*be a source of greater good.*What happens to your friend’s moral principle now? She*agrees that Trump's behaviour is “evil” but what if she learns that his*behaviour causes more good than harm? She ends up having to condone adultery, and at the drop of a hat something evil becomes something good! *Of course there are better means to separate a domestic abuser from his victims than to engage in adultery but that's to miss the point I'm trying to make. What happens to our moral principles and legal system if acts of evil actually cause good to someone somewhere else? One more: Paedophilia is deemed harmful in the West but not in certain places in the East. What ultimate authority does she have to say we are right in the West? I venture to say none whatsoever. This morality appears noble on one level but rather naive on another; it's*actually*shifting sand and totally unsustainable.
2. She ends up having to condone every depraved and obscure culture in the world which deem their immoral practices moral just so long as both parties involved consent to it. Some of these might be:*the marriage and sexual union of young*teens in Tierra del Fuego. The jihadi indoctrination of young boys in Syria. The bestiality performed in countries where sexual union with animals is deified. Hitler's youth. And so on and so forth. All these have or had consenting parties and all believe it is not causing harm!*
Finally, I want you to imagine what happens in a world where your friend's notion of "freedom at the cost of someone else's heartache is a bad one imo"*is actually practiced. Where does it land the aforementioned abused wife whose husband might suffer heartache if she reported him to the police? Where does it land the Jews in WW2 if Hitler’s feelings would be hurt if they*were released from the concentration camps? And finally, back to Trump. If the married woman's choice to reject him and remain free from his advancement caused him heartache, what then?*
Food for thought, at least.*
Rev. O J Batstone.
*
11 October 2016, 07:48 PM
#242
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Swati, the Pastor had an afternoon off and decided to respond to your post after I sent him your response to his Tweet.
Jimbo, first few lines of your friend's post tells us about her general understanding of my understanding of the world; in terms of sex.
*
I agree with her on this point - some people are bound by*their morals and principles. In fact, I'd go further, everybody is, though*people have varying limits and definitions to their morals and principles. But I must respectfully disagree with her on another. Unless your friend has her head buried in sand I suspect she would agree with me*that the prevailing attitude of the world's people, media, films, books, newspapers, pub gossip and work banter towards limitations placed upon our sexual orientation and activities are generally frowned upon. Take the Bible, for example, which has a lot to say on sex and how it should be enjoyed by a heterosexual couple within the sanctity of marriage. It is hardly the most popular book in the world is it? (Not withstanding sales). This is what I was getting at with the Trump story. A lot of people who engross themselves in gossip magazines, sensual internet sites, lewd music videos, chatter at work, books and soaps - and even the*people who are not directly responsible for creating these things but enjoy them to one extent or another – have readily*condemned Trump for adopting this tantalizing lifestyle for himself.*
At this juncture your friend might argue that this is a totally unfair analysis of human nature and*that most people would disapprove of Trump's actions for breaching the modus operandi of their moral principles "do not harm others". I find this interesting. Does she truly believe that the real problem with Trump's lewdness and promiscuity is that in this instance it was towards a non-consenting married woman whose husband may have been hurt? I hope there's something more to her morality than whether or not someone gets hurt. If not, the logical upshot of living by*this law lands her in 1 of 2 disastrous places:
1.Without a functional legal system. Take, for example, a*person who drives 40mph in a 30mph zone and in doing so harms a pensioner by causing her anxiety when she hears cars zoom by her house. The driver is guilty of braking Traffic Law but is he also guilty because he’s caused someone harm? What if the driver*was speeding because his wife was in the car and needed emergency medical treatment? The matter now becomes rather complex because harm caused to one person (the pensioner) might actually mean good caused to another (the wife). Moreover, take a person who places a coke can in the non-recycling bin which causes harm to a refuse collector who has to pick it out. But what if the person had placed the can there in a moment of panic because someone he loves was choking to death? Should the person have ignored his choking loved one in order to not cause harm to refuse collector? Is he guilty for causing harm? Already the cracks of this moral principle begin to show. It is almost impossible to live by. Here's another example. What if a grandparent*wants to cheer up their grandchildren with their favourite sweets, but 50 years down the road those sweets are the cause of harm to the grandchild's digestive system? *I'm giving silly examples to show that it's unsustainable and sometimes dangerous to think morality can be easily practiced within the sphere of*"don't harm anyone". *Half the time nobody knows what does and what doesn't cause harm. A person addicted to pornography might say that it’s a harmless obsession because it’s private. But soon they might find that what they do in private begins to shape who they are in public - He might become a pervert. It’s naïve to think lines of morality can be so easily be defined.
And if it's unsustainable on silly issues its equally true for more serious ones as well. The husband of the woman Trump tried to seduce may be a domestic monster and losing his wife and family to Trump might*be a source of greater good.*What happens to your friend’s moral principle now? She*agrees that Trump's behaviour is “evil” but what if she learns that his*behaviour causes more good than harm? She ends up having to condone adultery, and at the drop of a hat something evil becomes something good! *Of course there are better means to separate a domestic abuser from his victims than to engage in adultery but that's to miss the point I'm trying to make. What happens to our moral principles and legal system if acts of evil actually cause good to someone somewhere else? One more: Paedophilia is deemed harmful in the West but not in certain places in the East. What ultimate authority does she have to say we are right in the West? I venture to say none whatsoever. This morality appears noble on one level but rather naive on another; it's*actually*shifting sand and totally unsustainable.
2. She ends up having to condone every depraved and obscure culture in the world which deem their immoral practices moral just so long as both parties involved consent to it. Some of these might be:*the marriage and sexual union of young*teens in Tierra del Fuego. The jihadi indoctrination of young boys in Syria. The bestiality performed in countries where sexual union with animals is deified. Hitler's youth. And so on and so forth. All these have or had consenting parties and all believe it is not causing harm!*
Finally, I want you to imagine what happens in a world where your friend's notion of "freedom at the cost of someone else's heartache is a bad one imo"*is actually practiced. Where does it land the aforementioned abused wife whose husband might suffer heartache if she reported him to the police? Where does it land the Jews in WW2 if Hitler’s feelings would be hurt if they*were released from the concentration camps? And finally, back to Trump. If the married woman's choice to reject him and remain free from his advancement caused him heartache, what then?*
Food for thought, at least.*
Rev. O J Batstone.
*
Jimbo, first few lines of your friend's post tells us about her general understanding of my understanding of the world; in terms of sex.
*
I agree with her on this point - some people are bound by*their morals and principles. In fact, I'd go further, everybody is, though*people have varying limits and definitions to their morals and principles. But I must respectfully disagree with her on another. Unless your friend has her head buried in sand I suspect she would agree with me*that the prevailing attitude of the world's people, media, films, books, newspapers, pub gossip and work banter towards limitations placed upon our sexual orientation and activities are generally frowned upon. Take the Bible, for example, which has a lot to say on sex and how it should be enjoyed by a heterosexual couple within the sanctity of marriage. It is hardly the most popular book in the world is it? (Not withstanding sales). This is what I was getting at with the Trump story. A lot of people who engross themselves in gossip magazines, sensual internet sites, lewd music videos, chatter at work, books and soaps - and even the*people who are not directly responsible for creating these things but enjoy them to one extent or another – have readily*condemned Trump for adopting this tantalizing lifestyle for himself.*
At this juncture your friend might argue that this is a totally unfair analysis of human nature and*that most people would disapprove of Trump's actions for breaching the modus operandi of their moral principles "do not harm others". I find this interesting. Does she truly believe that the real problem with Trump's lewdness and promiscuity is that in this instance it was towards a non-consenting married woman whose husband may have been hurt? I hope there's something more to her morality than whether or not someone gets hurt. If not, the logical upshot of living by*this law lands her in 1 of 2 disastrous places:
1.Without a functional legal system. Take, for example, a*person who drives 40mph in a 30mph zone and in doing so harms a pensioner by causing her anxiety when she hears cars zoom by her house. The driver is guilty of braking Traffic Law but is he also guilty because he’s caused someone harm? What if the driver*was speeding because his wife was in the car and needed emergency medical treatment? The matter now becomes rather complex because harm caused to one person (the pensioner) might actually mean good caused to another (the wife). Moreover, take a person who places a coke can in the non-recycling bin which causes harm to a refuse collector who has to pick it out. But what if the person had placed the can there in a moment of panic because someone he loves was choking to death? Should the person have ignored his choking loved one in order to not cause harm to refuse collector? Is he guilty for causing harm? Already the cracks of this moral principle begin to show. It is almost impossible to live by. Here's another example. What if a grandparent*wants to cheer up their grandchildren with their favourite sweets, but 50 years down the road those sweets are the cause of harm to the grandchild's digestive system? *I'm giving silly examples to show that it's unsustainable and sometimes dangerous to think morality can be easily practiced within the sphere of*"don't harm anyone". *Half the time nobody knows what does and what doesn't cause harm. A person addicted to pornography might say that it’s a harmless obsession because it’s private. But soon they might find that what they do in private begins to shape who they are in public - He might become a pervert. It’s naïve to think lines of morality can be so easily be defined.
And if it's unsustainable on silly issues its equally true for more serious ones as well. The husband of the woman Trump tried to seduce may be a domestic monster and losing his wife and family to Trump might*be a source of greater good.*What happens to your friend’s moral principle now? She*agrees that Trump's behaviour is “evil” but what if she learns that his*behaviour causes more good than harm? She ends up having to condone adultery, and at the drop of a hat something evil becomes something good! *Of course there are better means to separate a domestic abuser from his victims than to engage in adultery but that's to miss the point I'm trying to make. What happens to our moral principles and legal system if acts of evil actually cause good to someone somewhere else? One more: Paedophilia is deemed harmful in the West but not in certain places in the East. What ultimate authority does she have to say we are right in the West? I venture to say none whatsoever. This morality appears noble on one level but rather naive on another; it's*actually*shifting sand and totally unsustainable.
2. She ends up having to condone every depraved and obscure culture in the world which deem their immoral practices moral just so long as both parties involved consent to it. Some of these might be:*the marriage and sexual union of young*teens in Tierra del Fuego. The jihadi indoctrination of young boys in Syria. The bestiality performed in countries where sexual union with animals is deified. Hitler's youth. And so on and so forth. All these have or had consenting parties and all believe it is not causing harm!*
Finally, I want you to imagine what happens in a world where your friend's notion of "freedom at the cost of someone else's heartache is a bad one imo"*is actually practiced. Where does it land the aforementioned abused wife whose husband might suffer heartache if she reported him to the police? Where does it land the Jews in WW2 if Hitler’s feelings would be hurt if they*were released from the concentration camps? And finally, back to Trump. If the married woman's choice to reject him and remain free from his advancement caused him heartache, what then?*
Food for thought, at least.*
Rev. O J Batstone.
*
other than that, it's good to attend to some goodness in the world; rather than having just a negative world view. Someone believing/following in some goodness in the world doesn't equate to that person burying his/her head in the sand. That's a very patronising phrase; implying as if the other party is just being blatantly ignorant. That's not the case.
And no, the married lady wouldn't just say 'no' to Trump because she doesn't want to hurt her husband. I believe that even if she weren't married to anyone, she'd say 'no' to him because she may have some standards. For example, she may not fancy his physical 'charms', or doesn't fancy advances by a married idiot. There could be even much more in her rejecting Trump, for what we know. Agreed. But about this as well, I didn't say that she wouldn't submit to Trump ONLY because 'Thou shan't hurt thy holy husband'. Christ!
Now if you take all this to Twitter for your pastor's reaction, please ask him to join in here if he is willing to react to that. I'd have further communication regarding his statement with him- himself.
Last edited by Turbohot; 11 October 2016 at 08:18 PM.
15 October 2016, 11:25 AM
#243
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
James, I'm not sure about your middleman-ship where you post something here about what he says elsewhere; on his behalf, you get the reaction, then you take my reaction to his dialogue from here to there, and then you bring back his reaction to my statement here. I think he should speak for himself, directly on Scoobynet, if it has to take a shape of a chain-communication. I'm sure we'll welcome him here for his input and admire direct chain-communication with him.
other than that, it's good to attend to some goodness in the world; rather than having just a negative world view. Someone believing/following in some goodness in the world doesn't equate to that person burying his/her head in the sand. That's a very patronising phrase; implying as if the other party is just being blatantly ignorant. That's not the case.
And no, the married lady wouldn't just say 'no' to Trump because she doesn't want to hurt her husband. I believe that even if she weren't married to anyone, she'd say 'no' to him because she may have some standards. For example, she may not fancy his physical 'charms', or doesn't fancy advances by a married idiot. There could be even much more in her rejecting Trump, for what we know. Agreed. But about this as well, I didn't say that she wouldn't submit to Trump ONLY because 'Thou shan't hurt thy holy husband'. Christ!
Now if you take all this to Twitter for your pastor's reaction, please ask him to join in here if he is willing to react to that. I'd have further communication regarding his statement with him- himself.
other than that, it's good to attend to some goodness in the world; rather than having just a negative world view. Someone believing/following in some goodness in the world doesn't equate to that person burying his/her head in the sand. That's a very patronising phrase; implying as if the other party is just being blatantly ignorant. That's not the case.
And no, the married lady wouldn't just say 'no' to Trump because she doesn't want to hurt her husband. I believe that even if she weren't married to anyone, she'd say 'no' to him because she may have some standards. For example, she may not fancy his physical 'charms', or doesn't fancy advances by a married idiot. There could be even much more in her rejecting Trump, for what we know. Agreed. But about this as well, I didn't say that she wouldn't submit to Trump ONLY because 'Thou shan't hurt thy holy husband'. Christ!
Now if you take all this to Twitter for your pastor's reaction, please ask him to join in here if he is willing to react to that. I'd have further communication regarding his statement with him- himself.
15 October 2016, 11:53 AM
#244
The pastors resiculous examples dont help whatsoever. Im not sure where the conversation stemed from but it appears to be about right and wrong .
The first example is it right to speed to save someones life even if a pensioner will feel anxiety by a speeding car .
I think everyone knows the answer to that
Is it right or wrong to use the wrong bin while someone is choking to death even if someone may get annoyed about later putting it in the right bin .
Everyone knows the answer .the person whose first reaction is to bin their can should be mentally analyzed .and the person that has to put it in the right bin should consider the persons sanity at the time.
But im interested to know the purpose of the debate . Is it that not everyone has a good understanding of right and wrong so should read the bible to be told ? Or is it to prove the need for laws ?
What is the point of it ?
The first example is it right to speed to save someones life even if a pensioner will feel anxiety by a speeding car .
I think everyone knows the answer to that
Is it right or wrong to use the wrong bin while someone is choking to death even if someone may get annoyed about later putting it in the right bin .
Everyone knows the answer .the person whose first reaction is to bin their can should be mentally analyzed .and the person that has to put it in the right bin should consider the persons sanity at the time.
But im interested to know the purpose of the debate . Is it that not everyone has a good understanding of right and wrong so should read the bible to be told ? Or is it to prove the need for laws ?
What is the point of it ?
Last edited by gary77; 15 October 2016 at 11:56 AM.
15 October 2016, 01:23 PM
#245
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06 January 2017, 04:51 PM
#250
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sunny Abu Dhabi!
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
With revelations due this week as to why the CIA believe that Russia hacked the US election - is it too much of a stretch to imagine that somehow Trump is a long term Russian plant?
Maybe he was a sleeper who has been activated?
Cheers
Steve
With revelations due this week as to why the CIA believe that Russia hacked the US election - is it too much of a stretch to imagine that somehow Trump is a long term Russian plant?
Maybe he was a sleeper who has been activated?
Cheers
Steve
07 January 2017, 11:59 AM
#252
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trump has changed his tune a bit on that Russian hacking, though. A news says that he agrees that the Russians and Chinese etc. could be performing hacking acts, but doesn't believe that Russian hacking rigged the votes that made him win against Hilary.
I wonder what Putin is thinking of Trump right now. Perhaps he always knew that Trump is a loose canon, and can't be relied on.
I wonder what Putin is thinking of Trump right now. Perhaps he always knew that Trump is a loose canon, and can't be relied on.
11 January 2017, 01:12 PM
#253
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: riding the crest of a wave ...
Posts: 46,493
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
12 Posts
Is Trump going to continue using the tw*tosphere to announce what he makes of it all??
I mean is he suddenly going to curtail in two weeks time
iv always found whitehouse random speakers giving forth a bit disingenuous/bizzare having said that
I mean is he suddenly going to curtail in two weeks time
iv always found whitehouse random speakers giving forth a bit disingenuous/bizzare having said that
12 January 2017, 01:13 PM
#258
"I put lipstick on a pig,” he said. “I feel a deep sense of remorse that I contributed to presenting Trump in a way that brought him wider attention and made him more appealing than he is.” He went on, “I genuinely believe that if Trump wins and gets the nuclear codes there is an excellent possibility it will lead to the end of civilization.” -
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...iter-tells-all
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...iter-tells-all
15 January 2017, 03:45 PM
#267
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
15 January 2017, 03:55 PM
#268
Scooby Senior
I was going to visit a friend this afternoon, hadn't seen him for a year, checked his twitter and found out he's a Brexit and Trump supporter. I feel a bit rotten for cancelling.
