But the fact that he has paid 850K to settle a rape accusation makes him 98% guilty in my mind already. For all practical purposes that is all the proof that I require. That's why I said I'd put Trump on the same footing if he had settled a rape case for such money. (the laughing face is regarding your "oh common" imitation btw :P ) — Agustino

I'm not a Clinton fan. However, as far as I'm aware, he's never been charged with rape. One doesn't pay to "settle" a criminal prosecution, unless a fine or forfeiture is the applicable penalty. Perhaps someone could be paid not to bring criminal charges or testify as a witness, which can create other problems. Payment may be made to settle a civil claim for damages, and that's what's being referred to here, I think.

In the wonderful world of the practice of law here in God's favorite country, civil actions are routinely settled; no liability for the claim made is determined or admitted in that case. Various factors are involved in deciding whether settlement is appropriate, but the truth of the allegations made is not necessarily a significant factor in the decision in most cases. Factors which are significant in most cases are the costs which would have to be expended in defending against the claim (e.g. attorney's fees); the length of time which will be needed to defend against the claims (what time you'll spend with lawyers, in court, preparing for discovery, preparing for trial, all of which reduces your ability to do other things like be with your family, do your job, run your business); the character of the presiding judge and his record in similar cases; the manner in which the allegations made may influence a jury; the ever-present possibility that a litigant will lose regardless of the evidence submitted; the likely results of an adverse decision; adverse publicity in some cases....in other words, factors which are significant regardless of whether the allegations made are true or false but because litigation is a nasty, expensive, time-consuming process the results of which are never certain.

Individuals and corporations who have the resources to manage their reputations and images generally seek out of court settlements. They may or may not be guilty, they may or may not have been falsely accused. The thing they want most is for the subject and the uproar to go away. Out of court settlements usually do make uproars and subjects go away, because in exchange for the cash, accusers agree to cease and desist--aka, shut up about it.

For similar reasons many accused plea bargain; they get charged with manslaughter instead of murder, and the state saves quite a bit of money on a potentially very expensive trial. Prosecutors are less likely to plea bargain in cases of egregious murder, (like serial murders, especially gruesome first degree murders--trials that the public is willing to pay for).

Example: 27 odd years ago, 11 year old Jacob Wetterling disappeared -- presumably kidnapped -- from his home in St. Joseph, Minnesota. There was a long, intense, and massive search for evidence. There were clues, but nothing certain. This fall, a man confessed, led the police to where the body was buried, and the identity was confirmed. Case closed. There was no trial. The perpetrator, Danny Heinrich 53, was already in federal custody for child pornography charges. Why was the kidnapping and murder charge plea bargained down to lesser charges?

a. The Wetterling family did not want to endure a trial.
b. If Heinrich had been accused, there might not have been sufficient evidence to convict without his cooperation.
c. The bargaining closed the case (good for the family and the community) and was unnecessary: Heinrich will remain in prison for the rest of his life.

People sometimes plead guilty to lesser charges even if they are not guilty because they want to avoid a trial and they want to get out of police custody. If the penalty is small (like for shoplifting) the fine may be viewed as the least worst outcome.

Same reason Trump settled all of his cases. — Heister Eggcart

@Agustino

Oh yeah. I should've googled it. He must be very guilty, then, because if you settle, you're guilty. Apparently.

So, I looked it up, and I found the Jill Harth lawsuit. The lawsuit says Trump attempted to rape Harth. Harth dropped her lawsuit after Trump settled another lawsuit (alleging breach of contract) related to the American Dream Festival.

So, Trump raped her.

Oh, and the lawsuit was in 1997, to contradict Agustino's false claim that all of the allegations against Trump are recent.

Although, this one is:

In April 2016, a woman named Katie Johnson filed a lawsuit accusing Trump and financier Jeffrey Epstein of raping her in 1994, when she was 13 years old.

The original lawsuit was dismissed due to technical filing errors. Johnson later filed the lawsuit again in June 2016 under the pseudonym "Jane Doe."

In October of 2016, federal judge Ronnie Abrams ordered a status conference hearing on the case for December of 2016. Trump, Epstein, and Jane Doe will also talk about a possible settlement and possible trial length.

So, in this case, we'll have to wait and see whether they settle to determine whether Trump raped her.

In the wonderful world of the practice of law here in God's favorite country, civil actions are routinely settled; no liability for the claim made is determined or admitted in that case. Various factors are involved in deciding whether settlement is appropriate, but the truth of the allegations made is not necessarily a significant factor in the decision in most cases. Factors which are significant in most cases are the costs which would have to be expended in defending against the claim (e.g. attorney's fees); the length of time which will be needed to defend against the claims (what time you'll spend with lawyers, in court, preparing for discovery, preparing for trial, all of which reduces your ability to do other things like be with your family, do your job, run your business); the character of the presiding judge and his record in similar cases; the manner in which the allegations made may influence a jury; the ever-present possibility that a litigant will lose regardless of the evidence submitted; the likely results of an adverse decision; adverse publicity in some cases....in other words, factors which are significant regardless of whether the allegations made are true or false but because litigation is a nasty, expensive, time-consuming process the results of which are never certain. — Ciceronianus the White

I knew it would be more complicated than @Agustino would have us believe. At least when it's about Bill Clinton. When it's about Donald Trump, despite what he has said, I doubt he'll be so quick to jump to the conclusion of guilt. Or he'll just find some other line of defence.

In any case, he has already said he'd pick Donald over Bill, regardless - even though it's a choice between Donald and Hilary for president.

your "Trump is morally better than Clinton" argument. — Michael

I never made that argument.

Yes, I will then consider him the equal of Bill Clinton. I'd still choose him over Bill if I had to pick between who is going to the White House, because at least Trump is sorrounded by a social conservative network, and will do more good for the country than Bill et al. — Agustino

Trump settled with his ex-wife over a rape accusation — Michael

It's his wife. She probably just wanted more dough than she could get by a simple divorce proceeding.

In the wonderful world of the practice of law here in God's favorite country, civil actions are routinely settled; no liability for the claim made is determined or admitted in that case. Various factors are involved in deciding whether settlement is appropriate, but the truth of the allegations made is not necessarily a significant factor in the decision in most cases. Factors which are significant in most cases are the costs which would have to be expended in defending against the claim (e.g. attorney's fees); the length of time which will be needed to defend against the claims (what time you'll spend with lawyers, in court, preparing for discovery, preparing for trial, all of which reduces your ability to do other things like be with your family, do your job, run your business); the character of the presiding judge and his record in similar cases; the manner in which the allegations made may influence a jury; the ever-present possibility that a litigant will lose regardless of the evidence submitted; the likely results of an adverse decision; adverse publicity in some cases....in other words, factors which are significant regardless of whether the allegations made are true or false but because litigation is a nasty, expensive, time-consuming process the results of which are never certain. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes I don't dispute this. But rich and powerful people, who easily have access to many lawyers, can outsource those worries, especially when they themselves are lawyers and have the necessary connections as Clinton was. Clinton didn't settle the case because he wanted to, or because he was scared, or because he was intimidated. He probably settled because a group of lawyers advised him to settle. It wasn't as John would have us believe such a stressful situation that that was the only way he could handle. Clinton isn't an idiot. I probably wouldn't have thought he was guilty had he settled for 100 grand, 200 grand, but close to a million is too much given the nature of the accusation. Furthermore, his well-known sexual promiscuity makes it more likely he would have attempted rape than otherwise. Not to mention that such a case would encourage all future women he has sex with to bring similar charges against him - it would set a precedent, because he would pay.

Individuals and corporations who have the resources to manage their reputations and images generally seek out of court settlements. They may or may not be guilty, they may or may not have been falsely accused. The thing they want most is for the subject and the uproar to go away. — Bitter Crank

Yes if it's possible they do. However, it depends on the circumstance. If your possible losses go up to 400 grand (fees, compensations, etc), and you settle for 5 million - then something is amiss.

Oh yeah. I should've googled it. He must be very guilty, then, because if you settle, you're guilty. Apparently. — Sapientia

Depends. If you settle a rape accusation with a stranger for 1 million, yes very likely you are guilty. If Trump were to settle Trump University cases for 1 million - it could be both ways (leaning on the guilty side however). Because those court cases have potential damages that could be greater than a million considering all the plaintiffs.

So, I looked it up, and I found the Jill Harth lawsuit. The lawsuit says Trump attempted to rape Harth. Harth dropped her lawsuit after Trump settled another lawsuit (alleging breach of contract) related to the American Dream Festival. — Sapientia

Yeah - she dropped the lawsuit, there we go. Trump never settled it.

It's his wife. She probably just wanted more dough than she could get by a simple divorce proceeding. — Agustino

Seriously? Can you not see the hypocrisy here? You will come up with any rationalisation to defend Trump against his rape accusations and any rationalisation to "prove" Bill's rape accusations.

Yeah - she dropped the lawsuit, there we go. Trump never settled it.

He settled the case with her husband. It's a reasonable inference to assume that part of that settlement agreement was that she drop her case against him. Again with the rationalisations.

It would be far more honest if you stop with all the character attacks and moralizing and just admit that all you care about is having a Republican rather than a Democrat in power. You've admitted to it before, which makes all of this irrelevant anyway.

He settled the case with her husband. It's a reasonable inference to assume that part of that settlement agreement was that she drop her case against him. Again with the rationalisations. — Michael

No, it's not reasonable at all - they were two different cases - one regarding business dealings and another regarding rape accusations. It's also quite likely that they - the husband/wife - launched both cases just to get some money out of Donald - the business one quite possibly being a fair one - hence the settlement - and the rape one just out of vengeance, and to put more pressure on Trump.

It would be far more honest if you stop with all the character attacks and moralizing and just admit that all you care about is having a Republican rather than a Democrat in power. — Michael

I did say already that I would support Trump even assuming he is on equal moral footing with Clinton. Why? Because he has a different support network, a social conservative one, which will guide the country much better than Clinton's progressive network. In fact, if Clinton was associating herself with people like Mike Pence - would have run from the Republican side in other words - and Trump from the Democrats, I would have supported Clinton. It's very simple. As I said hundreds of times before, I don't like either of them. But Trump being elected in this case is superior to Clinton - not necessarily because he is Trump, but because of the people he is associated with, and whom he depends on.

Why? Because he has a different support network, a social conservative one — Agustino

But Trump being elected in this case is superior to Clinton - not necessarily because he is Trump, but because of the people he is associated with, and whom he depends on. — Agustino

Who are these people, by name, exactly?

No, it's not reasonable at all - they were two different cases - one regarding business dealings and another regarding rape accusations. — Agustino

So it's more reasonable to conclude that the wife's decision to drop her rape accusation after Trump settled with her husband was a mere coincidence? I think not. That they're different cases doesn't matter at all.

It's also quite likely that they - the husband/wife - launched both cases just to get some money out of Donald.

How do you determine the likeliness of this? And why don't you say the same about the accusations against Clinton?

When Trump's accused of something it's because the accusers want money. When Bill's accused of something it's because he's guilty. It's all just rationalisations and hypocrisy.

I did say already that I would support Trump even assuming he is on equal moral footing with Clinton. Why? Because he has a different support network, a social conservative one, which will guide the country much better than Clinton's progressive network. In fact, if Clinton was associating herself with people like Mike Pence - would have run from the Republican side in other words - and Trump from the Democrats, I would have supported Clinton. It's very simple. As I said hundreds of times before, I don't like either of them. But Trump being elected in this case is superior to Clinton - not necessarily because he is Trump, but because of the people he is associated with, and whom he depends on.

Then all your talk about Bill being accused of rape (and Hillary supporting him) is a red herring.

People like Mike Pence, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, and so forth. You probably won't find a single social conservative in Crooked's political circle.

How do you determine the likeliness of this? And why don't you say the same about the accusations against Clinton? It's just rationalisations and hypocrisy. — Michael

Because it's more likely given the circumstance. It's not just "oh he has a rape case against him" - you have to understand the circumstance, and what it suggests.

Then all your talk about Bill being accused of rape is a red herring. — Michael

No, because that matters too. It's a cumulative set of issues that add up.

And these are the people who are going to make Trump an effective president?

The whole Republican support network has a high concentration of social conservatives. It's not that they will make Trump effective, but rather his administration will become effective. This isn't just about the person elected, but about all the people he will depend on, and who he will bring with him.

It's not at all clear to me that having a high concentration of social conservatives is both a necessary and sufficient condition for an effective administration. If this was the case, then literally any Republican candidate would do. Not only that, literally any group of regular Joe's off the street would be able to govern the country as long as they were socially conservative. What is it about having a socially conservative support network that makes for an effective administration?

Edit: And also, would you want to therefore claim that the democrats can never be effective in their administration simply because they lack a support network that is socially conservative?

Furthermore, how does being anti-gay marriage, pro-family, pro-life, pro life-long monogamy, etc, have anything whatsoever to do with economic expertise, health care, foreign policy, counter-terrorism, immigration, diplomacy, trade, and god knows what else you need to be well informed on?

It's not at all clear to me that having a high concentration of social conservatives is both a necessary and sufficient condition for an effective administration. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Sure, it's not sufficient as a condition. There needs to be a lot more there, and I'm not saying Trump's will be a great Presidency. As I've said before, progressivism as per Obama and Clinton is a cancer. Trump is merely the chemotherapy - not a good thing definitely, but better than the alternative - also a way to prepare the stage for social conservative candidates themselves.

If this was the case, then literally any Republican candidate would do. Not only that, literally any group of regular Joe's off the street would be able to govern the country as long as they were socially conservative. What is it about having a socially conservative support network that makes for an effective administration? — WhiskeyWhiskers

It's to do with the current situation that the Western world and the US finds itself in.

And also, would you want to therefore claim that the democrats can never be effective in their administration simply because they lack a support network that is socially conservative? — WhiskeyWhiskers

Not never - democrats weren't always like this. It's the New Left, from the 1960s onwards that has corrupted the Democratic Party. So again, you have to look at it as a historical situation. You are trying to take my pronouncements and apply them generally and forever - that's the wrong approach. What I said is valid only for this time period, and for the people in question.

Furthermore, how does being anti-gay marriage, pro-family, pro-life, pro life-long monogamy, etc, have anything whatsoever to do with economic expertise, health care, foreign policy, counter-terrorism, immigration, diplomacy, trade, and god knows what else you need to be well informed on? — WhiskeyWhiskers

It's not any help, but as I said, it's not a sufficient condition being socially conservative, but it is necessary.

Sure, it's not sufficient as a condition. There needs to be a lot more there, and I'm not saying Trump's will be a great Presidency. As I've said before, progressivism as per Obama and Clinton is a cancer. Trump is merely the chemotherapy - not a good thing definitely, but better than the alternative - also a way to prepare the stage for social conservative candidates themselves. — Agustino

You made me use the term "effective administration" because you used it. So stick to it. You might not be saying Trump's will be a great presidency, as you said earlier, but you are most certainly saying his administration will be effective (whatever that difference amounts to), because of the support network he surrounds himself with. So far you've said you'd vote for Trump because of who he surrounds himself with, and that will make his administration effective. You say it's not a sufficient condition, but it is a necessary condition. Let's remember that. I'll leave aside the parts about Obama and Clinton, because I want to know why you support Trump, not why you don't support the progressives.

You concede that there needs to "be a lot more there" for effective administration. Would this be, by any chance, an expertise on economics, health care, foreign policy, counter-terrorism, immigration, diplomacy, trade, etc? If not, can you elaborate on what exactly this does involve, and can you show some evidence of Trump (and his socially conservative support network) actually having it?

It's to do with the current situation that the Western world and the US finds itself in. — Agustino

You believe that being anti-gay marriage, pro-family, pro-life, pro life-long monogamy, etc, in the US, is a necessary condition for improving the current situation that the Western world finds itself in? How exactly?

And the situation the US finds itself in? The economic situation? The terrorism situation? The gun control situation? Immigration, trade, employment, wages, food stamps, poverty, home ownership, health care, energy situation and on, and on? How is it at all relevant to any of these? Can you explain the cause and effect behind that?

Not never - democrats weren't always like this. It's the New Left, from the 1960s onwards that has corrupted the Democratic Party. So again, you have to look at it as a historical situation. You are trying to take my pronouncements and apply them generally and forever - that's the wrong approach. What I said is valid only for this time period, and for the people in question. — Agustino

Ok, let's talk about now, the last 8 years. Factcheck.org breaks down Obama's (and his non-socially conservative support network's) successes and failures. Given that there is actual fact-based evidence of Obama's successes, doesn't this prove that having a socially conservative support network is not in any way a necessary condition for effective government? One would expect to find Obama's administration a complete and utter failure (given cancerously progressive they all are), if it were a necessary condition. It's empirically not. How do you explain this?

It's not any help, but as I said, it's not a sufficient condition being socially conservative, but it is necessary. — Agustino

So, let me understand this. It's not a sufficient condition, but a necessary one. But at the same time is "not any help" with respect to unrelated areas of government? Does it have anything to do with (hint) unrelated areas of government, or does it not? And if being anti-gay marriage, pro-family, pro-life, pro life-long monogamy, etc is a necessary condition for success in other areas of government, how do you explain Obama's success in some of these areas despite being a cancerous progressive?

So far, Agustino, I can't honestly fathom how on earth you could support Trump.

You concede that there needs to "be a lot more there" for effective administration. Would this be, by any chance, an expertise on economics, health care, foreign policy, counter-terrorism, immigration, diplomacy, trade, etc? — WhiskeyWhiskers

Yes it would be. Trump is still better than Crooked on economics, health care, counter-terrorism and immigration. Probably much worse on diplomacy and trade though.

You believe that being anti-gay marriage, pro-family, pro-life, pro life-long monogamy, etc, in the US, is a necessary condition for improving the current situation that the Western world finds itself in? How exactly? — WhiskeyWhiskers

Because our current society is greatly troubled by high divorce rates, high adultery and cheating rates, high out of wedlock birth rates, especially for the African American population in the US, and perpetual poverty and crime which emerges from such social instability. The fact that our children have close to a 1 in 2 chance of their parents divorcing - that alone is a big big problem (and by the way this isn't solved by giving benefits to single moms and all that crap. You have to go to the root of the problem. Otherwise you're merely covering the problem up instead of addressing it). Add on top of this the fact that we've come to live in a very promiscuous society, which no longer values ways of life which are necessary for social stability - to avoid conflicts and harm between people - and we have one of the most important problems facing modern Western society. Up there with radical terrorism (another one which the media never speaks about properly) and global warming.

And the situation the US finds itself in? The economic situation? The terrorism situation? The gun control situation? Immigration, trade, employment, wages, food stamps, poverty, home ownership, health care, energy situation and on, and on? How is it at all relevant to any of these? Can you explain the cause and effect behind that? — WhiskeyWhiskers

The economic situation of the US isn't good at all. Life is becoming more expensive in the large cities, there is more and more competition, people are becoming more and more isolated. Terrorism is rampant - just this year there were quite a few attacks, including the Orlando attack, and the more recent attacks. More importantly, the US is struggling to beat a band of nomads in the deserts of Syria for over 3 years - inadmissible. How long does it take to exterminate ISIS? ISIS are nobodies compared to the resources the US has available. Within 1 year, they should have been exterminated. Furthermore, the Middle East has been left in chaos because of Obama (whom Trump was right about - he actually is the founder of ISIS) by the way he has withdrawn from Iraq. The US shouldn't have left Iraq without maintaining a sizeable force there to ensure peace. The gun control situation is a problem - and Trump will probably not address that very well, I admit that. Immigration is also a very big problem - because it is tied with other problems - such as drugs, poverty, and crime - all of which create social imbalances, which manifest also through the lack of social conservatism noticed. Obamacare is a disaster in terms of healthcare, probably half of the population, if not more according to many sources find that it has done more harm than good. Trump will likely be somewhat negative on trade and green energy.

Ok, let's talk about now, the last 8 years. Factcheck.org breaks down Obama's (and his non-socially conservative support network's) successes and failures. Given that there is actual fact-based evidence of Obama's successes, doesn't this prove that having a socially conservative support network is not in any way a necessary condition for effective government? — WhiskeyWhiskers

I don't know who the hell this factcheck.org is supposed to be or what hidden interests may be behind it. Obama's successes - that's a mirage. What's the success? Obamacare? ISIS? Supreme Court imposing the legality of gay marriage on all states? Really?? That's the "success" of Obama? Pff.

One would expect to find Obama's administration a complete and utter failure (given cancerously progressive they all are), if it were a necessary condition. It's empirically not. How do you explain this? — WhiskeyWhiskers

And this is exactly what we find the Obama administration to be. More black people are in poverty today. Many black communities are still riddled with crime, and no better than before. More black children are born out of wedlock in circumstances that are almost guaranteed to keep them in life-long poverty than ever before. He hasn't even done any good for black people - it's just been a way to shove it to them, be like "yeah there you go, you have a black president now". It means nothing. Black folks aren't living any better today than before. And yet "oh what are Obama's failures?". Are you kidding me? Obama himself is a failure - pure and simple.

Yes it would be. Trump is still better than Crooked on economics, health care, counter-terrorism and immigration. Probably much worse on diplomacy and trade though. — Agustino

Does it not occur to you that Trump couldn't possibly be an expert (though I'm sure he'd call himself the best expert) on a single one of these issues because he has absolutely no political experience or relevant education?

Because our current society is greatly troubled by high divorce rates, high adultery and cheating rates, high out of wedlock birth rates, especially for the African American population in the US, and perpetual poverty and crime which emerges from such social instability. The fact that our children have close to a 1 in 2 chance of their parents divorcing - that alone is a big big problem (and by the way this isn't solved by giving benefits to single moms and all that crap. You have to go to the root of the problem. Otherwise you're merely covering the problem up instead of addressing it). Add on top of this the fact that we've come to live in a very promiscuous society, which no longer values ways of life which are necessary for social stability - to avoid conflicts and harm between people - and we have one of the most important problems facing modern Western society. Up there with radical terrorism (another one which the media never speaks about properly) and global warming. — Agustino

So you're telling me you believe that a Donald Trump presidency is going to somehow reduce the divorce, adultery and cheating rates, and out of wedlock birth rates, all, presumably, without prohibitive legislation? And that he's going to re-establish your preferred moral code into the heart of society again? Again, how?

Divorce rates are not as high as people believe: the truth about divorce rates is surprisingly optimistic, this is the original source for that link, as you can see, the rate of divorce is falling, some incorrectly believe the 50% number, and here's one more source.

It's very clear to everyone that you have moral issues with how individuals in free society choose to conduct themselves in their own private lives, but I fail to see how simply having a republican (especially a life-long democrat kind of republican) president is going to magically reverse whatever slide into decay you perceive to be happening, especially years after their term. There are 320 million people in America right now, who will live on for decades and decades, and you think Donald Trump is going to exert a significant enough influence over the choices they make over the course of their entire lives after a minuscule four years in office?

The fact is there is no reason to believe that anyone has this kind of sway, even a republican president, when you accept the fact (and I bet therein lies the crux) that divorce rates have been falling year after year under republican and democratic presidents alike. There is no causal link there. You seem to think, divorce is bad, republicans are against divorce, therefore I'll support a republican. I can't see any deeper reasoning behind it.

And the fact that you actually believe Trump is a republican (or any of the things he says) tells me you've bought wholesale into his con. He's already been divorced twice, married three times, and committed adultery. And bragged about using his power to get away with sexually assaulting women. And you think he's the solution to societies ills? Jesus Christ, he is the very best example of the exact problem you claim to hate.

I don't know who the hell this factcheck.org is supposed to be or what hidden interests may be behind it. Obama's successes - that's a mirage. What's the success? Obamacare? ISIS? Supreme Court imposing the legality of gay marriage on all states? Really?? That's the "success" of Obama? Pff. — Agustino

Yeh, those research experts. Who the hell do they think they are? With their Ph.D's, Pulitzer prizes for journalism, fancy letters after their names, and awards for impartial journalistic integrity. You've spun a wheel of abstract a priori's, what do they know?

If I can't get you to agree that Obama's terms have not been a complete and utter failure (think for a minute how much worse America would look if that were the case, considering how you think Donald Trump can have so much influence) in spite of the empirical evidence, I don't have much hope of you attempting to address substance of the argument that disproves your claim that a socially conservative support network is a necessary condition for administrative success. If that were the case, it would be logically impossible for a successful democratic presidency. Think about that. Really think about what you're saying and compare it to reality. It would be as impossible as drawing a square circle.

It sounds like you're parroting all the standard memes of the republican party, even down to the Obama ones. And what's even more bizarre is that you've come to the US political scene from the outside, you didn't even grow up in it.

I don't like being so dismissive, but you don't seem to realise how utterly insane the idea of a President Trump looks from the outside.

What's the success? Obamacare? ISIS? Supreme Court imposing the legality of gay marriage on all states? Really?? — Agustino

1 and 3? Yes. Not sure what you mean when you reference ISIS.

Does it not occur to you that Trump couldn't possibly be an expert (though I'm sure he'd call himself the best expert) on a single one of these issues because he has absolutely no political experience or relevant education? — WhiskeyWhiskers

And you think Crooked is an expert right? Trump knows and understand business, he can think from a businessman's perspective while in office, which will be helpful at least in economics. Also he has a knack for getting things done, which will be helpful in the case of both illegal immigration and terrorism. He has the right attitude. Also, the job of President isn't about doing things yourself. It's about getting others to do things and making sure that they do do them.

So you're telling me you believe that a Donald Trump presidency is going to somehow reduce the divorce, adultery and cheating rates, and out of wedlock birth rates, all, presumably, without prohibitive legislation? And that he's going to re-establish your preferred moral code into the heart of society again? Again, how? — WhiskeyWhiskers

In-so-far as progressivism is a root cause of the moral decay of society, and Trump is against progressivism, he will help. I do not claim he will reduce them - perhaps not. But he will ensure that the progressives stop with their advances, which will prepare the groundwork for a future social conservative candidate to come and finish the job.

Divorce rates are not as high as people believe: the truth about divorce rates is surprisingly optimistic, this is the original source for that link, as you can see, the rate of divorce is falling, some incorrectly believe the 50% number, and here's one more source. — WhiskeyWhiskers

>:O Your propaganda efforts are hilarious. Okay let's have some fun. First - less people are getting married than before. Second - people are getting married late, if ever, compared to before. This means that while the population increases, the number of marriages will obviously increase but at a slower rate - hence if you calculate the statistics you linked me to, you will find that the marriage rate is decreasing, as is the divorce rate. This is only natural when you have a population which grows at a faster rate than people get married. It has absolutely NOTHING with whether less married people divorce today, than they did 50 years ago. The statistic of 50% that people know is the correct one. Of all marriages 50% end in divorce. This isn't the bullshit that oh in 15 years 80% were still together - as in one of the links you have provided. That's not the question. The question is over a lifetime are they still together? The other statistic - about marriages compared by the time when they got married - the lie of course is that if you adjust the 2000s generation to 25-30 years of married life (even though they haven't lived it yet, but we can predict by extrapolating the trend) you will find out that they will divorce more than any one else before.

Now there is another problem. That people are marrying late. What does this mean? It means that promiscuity is becoming common place in our society, which isn't good at all. It's a disaster. And it's something we have to do something about. What we have to do - I don't know, I'm not sure. But it's clear to me that we can't keep going like we have. You're just irrationally refusing to see that this is a problem, and deluding yourself with statistics that it doesn't seem you understand very well. I have studied the trends (at least in Europe, not in US) very well - the conclusions are beyond doubt. More marriages end in divorce today than ever before. People are getting married later than ever before. Less people are getting married than before. People's sexual morality is disappearing. Promiscuity is on the rise - especially in the young. These are just the facts. Look around at your world. Just go out into the street. Look what people are doing. It's a fact - it can't get any clearer. Today is the first time in history where we serve promiscuity as a business - it's called a nightclub. There we go something that can be done - outlaw nightclubs >:O

It's very clear to everyone that you have moral issues with how individuals in free society choose to conduct themselves in their own private lives, but I fail to see how simply having a republican (especially a life-long democrat kind of republican) president is going to magically reverse whatever slide into decay you perceive to be happening, especially years after their term. — WhiskeyWhiskers

As I said - he will ready the ground for reversing that by dealing with the progressives. Someone else will need to come afterwards to reverse that slide.

It's very clear to everyone that you have moral issues with how individuals in free society choose to conduct themselves in their own private lives — WhiskeyWhiskers

The way you frame this is ridiculous. This is obviously meant to suggest "what is your business in being concerned how others conduct themselves in their private lives in a free society? You have no place here". There is no freedom to be immoral and hurt other people. For no one.

The fact is there is no reason to believe that anyone has this kind of sway, even a republican president, when you accept the fact (and I bet therein lies the crux) that divorce rates have been falling year after year under republican and democratic presidents alike. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Divorce RATE - I don't care about the rate. The rate is calculated with reference to the population. Of course that is decreasing, for the reason I have described before. I'm interested in the percentage of marriages that end in divorce. The divorce/marriage ratio is a clearer indicator of that.

http://www.divorce.usu.edu/files/uploads/lesson3.pdf

Now it is you who is refusing to see the facts on this issue. You deceive yourself that there is no problem. Remember that.

And the fact that you actually believe Trump is a republican (or any of the things he says) tells me you've bought wholesale into his con. He's already been divorced twice, married three times, and committed adultery. And bragged about using his power to get away with sexually assaulting women. And you think he's the solution to societies ills? Jesus Christ, he is the very best example of the exact problem you claim to hate. — WhiskeyWhiskers

As I said, if progressivism is cancer, then Trump is chemotherapy.

Yeh, those research experts. Who the hell do they think they are? With their Ph.D's, Pulitzer prizes for journalism, fancy letters after their names, and awards for impartial journalistic integrity. You've spun a wheel of abstract a priori's, what do they know? — WhiskeyWhiskers

A PhD doesn't make you smart.

If I can't get you to agree that Obama's terms have not been a complete and utter failure — WhiskeyWhiskers

I never said complete and utter failure. But they were a failure, yes.

I don't have much hope of you attempting to address substance of the argument that disproves your claim that a socially conservative support network is a necessary condition for administrative success. If that were the case, it would be logically impossible for a successful democratic presidency. Think about that. Really think about what you're saying and compare it to reality. It would be as impossible as drawing a square circle. — WhiskeyWhiskers

No it wouldn't - because as I have said to you before, Democrats weren't always like this. Only after the New Left came into power, after the 1960s, did Democrats become so anti social conservatism, and so rooted in the promotion of promiscuity.

And what's even more bizarre is that you've come to the US political scene from the outside, you didn't even grow up in it. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Yes because I don't listen to the corrupt progressive media (who are the majority of all media), nor do I get involved in viewing corrupt Hollywood (also a majority progressives) and neither do I like the academia (90% progressives in some social science universities). These three entities have the largest concentrations of progressives out of any.

I don't like being so dismissive, but you don't seem to realise how utterly insane the idea of a President Trump looks from the outside. — WhiskeyWhiskers

If by "outside" you mean the brainwashing media - then sure.

1 and 3? Yes. Not sure what you mean when you reference ISIS. — Michael

Yes - then you see why I don't support Crooked. She will just continue Obama.

But Trump being elected in this case is superior to Clinton - not necessarily because he is Trump, but because of the people he is associated with, and whom he depends on. — Agostino

Well, that's a shame. My estimation of your judgement has just plummeted. It's not even a matter of politics - I disagree vehemently with some of the Democrat's social policies. But it is a case of a competent public official, vs a venal, self-serving narcissist sorrounded by a bunch of opportunist and unprincipled cronies.

Furthermore by any objective measure, Obama's management of the economy has been outstanding. He inherited a shambles from W, and has actually managed to restore a great deal of the wreckage, like saving the US car industry, which the conservatives gladly would have sacrificed on the altar of dry economics. Obama is the most credible figure on the international stage in my book, notwithstanding 8 years of hysterical propaganda by the right.

competent public official — Wayfarer

Hillary Clinton is competent? Really? So she was competent in the way she handled the emails? She was competent in the way she handled Benghazi? She was competent in the way she handled the Iran deal? The only time when she was competent was when she used her foundation as a pay for play scheme - yeah, she actually was competent in that.

a venal, self-serving narcissist sorrounded by a bunch of opportunist and unprincipled cronies. — Wayfarer

This describes Hillary quite nicely, though.

Bollocks. Sorry that was rude, I meant 'no, not at all'.

there are plenty if grounds for criticism, which has been made, and responded to. But compared to the malevolence and incompetence of Trump it is politics as usual.

Imagine how much better the world wold have been today if Gore had won. We will never know of course but I'm certain there would have been no invasion of Iraq. If Trump were to win it literally could mean the end of Western civilization.

Hillary Clinton is competent? Really? So she was competent in the way she handled the emails? She was competent in the way she handled Benghazi? She was competent in the way she handled the Iran deal? The only time when she was competent was when she used her foundation as a pay for play scheme - yeah, she actually was competent in that. — Agustino

Benghazi?? Jesus Christ, you have really drunk the Fox News Kool Aid. Bush and his cronies started a war on false pretenses which has cost the country dearly in blood and treasure, and he gets a free pass from conservatives. A few people die in Libya while Clinton is SoS and it's her fault, to be endlessly investigated. Congress held more hearings on Benghazi than perhaps any other issue in recent memory and found no wrongdoing on Clinton's part. So, please stop the right-wing bullshit.

To mods: is there a way to block posters, as there was in PF? I'd prefer to have to never read another of Agustino's posts ever again, if I can help it.

Clinton is by no means above reproach but all this nonsense about Libya and emails, are just echoes of enormous efforts by the fringe right to manufacture evidence of wrongdoing. With Trump the US is facing an existential menace which could literally wreck the country in the same way the GOP has been wrecked by him. We really need to see this as a genuine crisis.

There's also a lot of Russian disinformation being circulated, its scary to see how easily people swallow it.