POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

Poll

Will Trump get re-elected in 2020?

Yes
No

Author Topic: POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD  (Read 2179284 times)

the fact that two years in people are shocked Donald Annoying Orange is Donald Annoying Orange really says something about the memory retention/iq of our country

the fact that two years in people are shocked I Can't Believe It's Not Butter isn't butter really says something about the memory retention/iq of our country

rich people can afford prostitutes. is this really that important news? it speaks about his character, but not his eligibility for president, nor is severely illegal.
That's not necessarily true. For starters it depends on where the funds came from - were they campaign funds? If so you're possibly looking at a breach of campaign finance laws

It also depends on when the payments were made. If they have similar timing to Daniels' payment, they should also have been on his assets and liabilities disclosure - it would be illegal to wilfully omit them (again)

Either way it's a moot point of you to make I think, as if it's not worth discussing that a sitting president made multiple hush payments to women he had affairs with while married lol. The character of a politician is hardly irrelevant

the fact that two years in people are shocked Donald Annoying Orange is Donald Annoying Orange really says something about the memory retention/iq of our country

what did he mean by this?

That's not necessarily true. For starters it depends on where the funds came from - were they campaign funds? If so you're possibly looking at a breach of campaign finance laws

It also depends on when the payments were made. If they have similar timing to Daniels' payment, they should also have been on his assets and liabilities disclosure - it would be illegal to wilfully omit them (again)

Either way it's a moot point of you to make I think, as if it's not worth discussing that a sitting president made multiple hush payments to women he had affairs with while married lol. The character of a politician is hardly irrelevant
its not irrelevant, sure, but its like fishing for drama/stuff for tabloids. no impeachments or anything really significant will come out of this, its just more stuff for people who dont like Annoying Orange to jerk over. like the "grab em by the pusillanimous individual" quote - nobody who likes Annoying Orange cares. maybe independents/fence straddlers do, but as one, i personally care more about the candidate's policies and plans and ability to get things done. stuff like this wouldnt make or break my vote.

please God president pence


its not irrelevant, sure, but its like fishing for drama/stuff for tabloids. no impeachments or anything really significant will come out of this, its just more stuff for people who dont like Annoying Orange to jerk over. like the "grab em by the pusillanimous individual" quote - nobody who likes Annoying Orange cares. maybe independents/fence straddlers do, but as one, i personally care more about the candidate's policies and plans and ability to get things done. stuff like this wouldnt make or break my vote.
Cool, so ignore it then? I think potential illegal ommissions are important but im not going to try and convince you to care lol

I'm sure clopster knows exactly how to impeach blumpf don't worry he'll do it eventually.


Cool, so ignore it then? I think potential illegal ommissions are important but im not going to try and convince you to care lol
i dont think its something to ignore, i just feel like its an attempt to grasp at straws to make it seem like he can still be impeached or whatever. like digging up stuff on lord tony doing something bad when everyone knows he isnt a great guy in the first place.

i dont think its something to ignore, i just feel like its an attempt to grasp at straws to make it seem like he can still be impeached or whatever. like digging up stuff on lord tony doing something bad when everyone knows he isnt a great guy in the first place.
Also don’t neglect that prostitution is a victimless crime on its own. Saying that prostitution is evidence of unethical conduct is like saying that Obama smoking weed in college is. Both are crimes which don’t “harm” anyone and imo prostitution should be legal but regulated for health/safety and taxed as any other industry, and in certain locations it already is such.

There is the scenario that a woman is being entrepreneur ed out against their will but that doesn’t sound like the case here at all.

yeah thats a pretty good comparison actually. just cause a crime might have happened/has definitely happened doesnt mean its something serious or important. like how nobody gets fined or stopped for jaywalking unless it indirectly caused an accident or hurt someone.

so unless theres more information on something actually bad happening, its just something for hardline Annoying Orange haters to circlejerk around

so unless theres more information on something actually bad happening, its just something for hardline Annoying Orange haters to circlejerk around
The issue I take is that I'm entirely willing to engage in reasonable and truthful discussion about politics, but the anti-Annoying Orange circlejerk in this thread can be pretty overbearing. Full disclosure, I did vote for Annoying Orange but during the primaries I supported Rand Paul. This doesn't mean I agree with every position Annoying Orange has nor does it mean that I necessarily believe he's a bastion of grace and professionalism befitting the highest political office in the country.

I tend to be pretty mixed between  left and right depending on the issue (reasonable access to abortion, unfettered legalization of gay marriage, and decriminalization/legalization of marijuana are three somewhat left leaning policies/views I support), but the circlejerking on the BLF gets REALLY tiring after a while. It seems certain users in particular have this preconceived notion that Annoying Orange is guilty before proven innocent and it really reflects in the way they post/the atmosphere of discourse in this thread.

It's one thing to levy actual evidence to back up claims, and an entirely different, sad, and pathetic thing to buy into the witch-hunting/circlerjerking of muh russia/muh stormy daniels and spout absolutely unfounded, sophistic nonsense to shout down anyone that disagrees.

Idgaf about prostitution, I do care about the legality surrounding the payments, and denials or omissions about either the affairs or the payments themselves

I don't think that's grasping at straws. The end point of discussion doesn't always need to be "yeah but will that get him impeached". That's a stupid bar to set