Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

"Are You Better Off Than You Were 4 Years Ago?" Poll

"Are You Better Off Than You Were 4 Years Ago?" Poll  

21 members have voted

  1. 1. In four months--on Election Day--, do you think the majority of Americans will be able to say that they are better off than they were four years ago?

  2. 2. Which of the following presidents made American better off compared to their predecessor? Which of these is true?

    • Americans were better off after 4 years with Trump than with Obama's last four years.
    • Americans were better off after 4 years with Obama than with Bush II's last four years.
    • Americans were better off after 4 years with Bush II than with Clinton's last four years.
    • Americans were better off after 4 years with Clinton than with Bush I's last four years.
    • Americans were better off after 4 years with Bush I than with Reagan's last four years.
    • Americans were better off after 4 years with Reagan than with Carter's last four years.
    • Each president was worse for American's than their predecessor.
      0
  3. 3. Will Pres. Biden be a better president than Trump? i.e. Will America be better off in four years than they are now?

  4. 4. What are the chances that Trump wins reelection based on what you think will happen between now and election day?

    • Guaranteed 10 out of 10
      0
    • About 9 out of 10
      0
    • About 8 out of 10
      0
    • About 7 out of 10
      0
    • About 6 out of 10 (lean Trump)
    • About 5 out of 10 (total tossup)
    • About 4 out of 10 (lean Biden)
    • About 3 out of 10
    • About 2 out of 10
    • About 1 out of 10
      0
    • Guaranteed defeat 0 out of 10
      0
  5. 5. What is your opinion of 3rd Parties? Click all that are true.

    • It should be encouraged in this election, so as to oe day become a major party or influence the major parties.
    • While I prefer the 3rd parties to the major parties, I think anyone voting 3rd party is naively helping Trump.
    • While I prefer the 3rd parties to the major parties, I think anyone voting 3rd party is naively helping Biden.
      0
    • Having little impact on the election and are wasting their time and their vote so long as we have an electoral college and a single-round voting system.
    • Are close to traitors for screwing up the election results, especially in battleground states.
    • I am okay with it, and I might support them, but they'll likely never be major parties and they may never have much of an influence.
    • 3rd parties should be eliminated in the general election unless they are polling a certain significant % within a month of the election.
    • I hope both major parties collapse and we end up with like 3 or 4 major parties, even if it means no one ever gets 270 EVs and the House decides every election.
    • I have a positive view of the 3rd parties in theory, but I have a negative view of them in practice.
    • Jill Stein cost Hillary Clinton the election.
    • Gary Johnson cost Hillary Clinton the election.
    • Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the election.
    • Ross Perot cost GHW Bush the election.
    • John Anderson cost Jimmy Carter the election.
    • If you selected that any of these above people cost a nominee the election, were we better off with the winner than we were with the losing nominee?
    • Would the US be better off with a parliamentary system like in Canada or the UK, which might allow 3rd parties more influence?
    • The Green Party will one day be a major party.
    • The Libertarian Party will one day be a major party.
    • Third Parties should evolve and compromise in order to expand their umbella and excite more registered voters outside of their purists base, otherwise they'll never have a chance at 270 EVs.
    • Third Parties would destroy the major parties if the Electoral College were abolished.
    • Third Parties would destroy the major parties if the Electoral College were abolished and if there was a multi-round or multi-rank voting system.
    • Third Parties would destroy the major parties if they got equal air time and debate participation with the major parties.
    • I will see a 3rd party president in my lifetime.
    • Other regarding 3rd parties.


Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Yes, which is why I'm criticizing you for your statement re Kavanaugh. I don't like the idea of people's lives being destroyed because of possibly true, possibly false allegations from 30 years ago. As you said, you ought to seriously consider the allegations. In this case (as in many others regarding public officials, as you noted with Buttigieg), they don't hold up to the standard required to destroy someone's life or career.

 

You’ve asked about my standard, so I’ll ask about yours:

Is anybody ever actually guilty of sexual assault?

Are all sexual assaults to be ignored, even when we have a confession on tape?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Um the Franken removal had nothing to do with the Alabama Senate race

'

It happened at the exact same time.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

Was it about me? You didn't mention anyone else when you first made your post. Now it's about admin and others? Okay.

 

Okay so now that I did say well Trump should get the boot for Pence, that doesn't give me any credit for saying Biden should? Why are you moving the goal posts here?

 

https://time.com/3713264/joe-biden-stephanie-carter-shoulder-rub/ it should now. 

 

11 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

The link didn’t work.

Yeah I just relinked it rather than editing it, should have done both though hahh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

 

Yeah I just relinked it rather than editing it, should have done both though hahh

WOAH WOAH WOAH.

Are you seriously comparing extremely public shoulder rubs to "grabbing them by the pussy," which is how Donald Trump described his own actions, on tape?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

You’ve asked about my standard, so I’ll ask about yours:

Is anybody ever actually guilty of sexual assault?

Are all sexual assaults to be ignored, even when we have a confession on tape?

OK, I take it you have no response re your apparent inconsistency with Kavanaugh and Biden.

Let's move to the Access Hollywood tape. You claim we have a 'confession' on tape. I presume you're referring to this part of the tape, where him and Billy Bush are about to meet Arianne Zucker?

"I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

OK, I take it you have no response re your apparent inconsistency with Kavanaugh and Biden.

Let's move to the Access Hollywood tape. You claim we have a 'confession' on tape. I presume you're referring to this part of the tape, where him and Billy Bush are about to meet Arianne Zucker?

"I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything."

 

Yes, that's a good place to start.  We can eventually move on to the interviews he's given where he brags about intentionally walking into the women's dressing room at Miss America pageants, coupled with the contestants at TEEN Miss America alleging that he did the same thing to them.  But let's start with the Access Hollywood Tape.  Any concerns there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

But let's start with the Access Hollywood Tape.  Any concerns there?

OK. Let's start with Arianne Zucker. Has she claimed Trump has sexually assaulted her?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

OK. Let's start with Arianne Zucker. Has she claimed Trump has sexually assaulted her?

...that's how you're responding?  Finding women who have NOT currently accused Trump of sexually assaulting them?  

What?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

WOAH WOAH WOAH.

Are you seriously comparing extremely public shoulder rubs to "grabbing them by the pussy," which is how Donald Trump described his own actions, on tape?

 

I'm comparing him being extremely touchy with little girls to Trump's tape yes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

I'm comparing him being extremely touchy with little girls to Trump's tape yes. 

Okay.  Well, that's wrong.  Shoulders are not genitals.  We can agree that Biden and anyone else should not be touching someone's shoulders if they're not okay with that, but that is a whole world away from grabbing someone by the pussy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

...that's how you're responding?  Finding women who have NOT currently accused Trump of sexually assaulting them?  

What?

Don't worry. They like to bait and switch. As long as they're on the offensive, it's okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

...that's how you're responding?  Finding women who have NOT currently accused Trump of sexually assaulting them?  

What?

No, you're making a serious allegation. I'm trying to figure out exactly what you're alleging.

The Hollywood Access tape reflects poorly on Trump, but not in the way you think it does. 

Let's go through the comments in that quotation, part by part.

"I better use some Tic Tacs"

Pretty sure using Tic Tacs isn't sexual assault.

"just in case I start kissing her."

Not sexual assault, unless it's non-consensual.

"You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful"

Pretty sure being automatically attracted to beautiful women isn't sexual assault.

"I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait."

Important phrase, but ambiguous. Again, it depends on whether its consensual. Wait for what?

"And when you're a star, they let you do it."

Key phrase, because it establishes that he might be talking about consensual situations. (He seems to be referring to people who allow stars to move very quickly.)

"You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything"

Again, key word here is 'can'. He's not claiming any concrete action on his part, just that stars 'can' do that.

So, plausible read is 

1. Trump is talking about a consensual situation where a star can move quickly in elevating sexual activity.

2. So, not a confession of anything.

3. It's obviously being said in an attempt at humour ("Better get some Tic Tacs").

4. It sounds a lot like 'locker room' braggadocio I've heard various times, not to be taken literally. Trump claims it was 'locker room' talk.

What the tape establishes is that Trump was being crude in private comments. No big surprise!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@vcczar @pilight @CPE @Actinguy @SilentLiberty @Conservative Elector 2 @Hestia11 A little factoid about Canadian politics that all of you might find amazing shocking - Canadian politicians in elected offices are not actually de facto immune to arrest, trial, conviction, and even incarceration (we haven't had capital punishment here since the mid-70's) while in office, and fair number have been so, including a whole Executive Council (basically, the Government) of a whole Province (the Devine Government in Saskatchewan in the mid '80's for a massive embezzlement scheme) and my own long-term MP, Peter Goldring (whom I never voted for, as he was Reform, then CA, then Conservative, and was a slum landlord owner, and someone I knew who had worked on his electoral campaign team said he was a sleazy man) for impaired driving. There are other incidents of such, as well - including several that involve sex crimes - involving a former Yukon Premier who had apparently sexually assaulted several First Nations women. Even the Prime Minister of Canada could not "shoot someone dead in public on Young Street," (a main artery, thoroughfare, and business centre in Toronto, Canada's largest city - and apparently now bigger than Chicago, but still smaller than LA) or "grab 'em by the *ahem*" like Donald Trump boasted about his ability to get away with freely. Not only is de facto immunity to criminal prosecution not the case, there is ABSOLUTELY NO official in Canada today who can grant pardons by their own discretion and power, and let those granted jump the long, grinding "soup line," the Canadian judicial system demands to qualify for a pardon, if one even qualifies. Wouldn't it be nice if the United States, with the motto, "And Justice for All," on it's Supreme Court building, or the United Kingdom, with a similar pompous, but equally vain, motto on the Old Bailey, or France, with high pretenses, in theory, on justice, lacked de facto untouchable elected political leaders - especially given all three of those nations have governments, and past governments, absolutely chalk full - just seething - with criminals, getting away with vile crimes, Scott free.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

@vcczar @pilight @CPE @Actinguy @SilentLiberty @Conservative Elector 2 @Hestia11 A little factoid about Canadian politics that all of you might find amazing shocking - Canadian politicians in elected offices are not actually de facto immune to arrest, trial, conviction, and even incarceration (we haven't had capital punishment here since the mid-70's) while in office, and fair number have been so, including a whole Executive Council (basically, the Government) of a whole Province (the Devine Government in Saskatchewan in the mid '80's for a massive embezzlement scheme) and my own long-term MP, Peter Goldring (whom I never voted for, as he was Reform, then CA, then Conservative, and was a slum landlord owner, and someone I knew who had worked on his electoral campaign team said he was a sleazy man) for impaired driving. There are other incidents of such, as well - including several that involve sex crimes - involving a former Yukon Premier who had apparently sexually assaulted several First Nations women. Even the Prime Minister of Canada could not "shoot someone dead in public on Young Street," (a main artery, thoroughfare, and business centre in Toronto, Canada's largest city - and apparently now bigger than Chicago, but still smaller than LA) or "grab 'em by the *ahem*" like Donald Trump boasted about his ability to get away with freely. Not only is de facto immunity to criminal prosecution not the case, there is ABSOLUTELY NO official in Canada today who can grant pardons by their own discretion and power, and let those granted jump the long, grinding "soup line," the Canadian judicial system demands to qualify for a pardon, if one even qualifies. Wouldn't it be nice if the United States, with the motto, "And Justice for All," on it's Supreme Court building, or the United Kingdom, with a similar pompous, but equally vain, motto on the Old Bailey, or France, with high pretenses, in theory, on justice, lacked de facto untouchable elected political leaders - especially given all three of those nations have governments, and past governments, absolutely chalk full - just seething - with criminals, getting away with vile crimes, Scott free.

Very much agreed. Thank you for the factoid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

 

"I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait."

Important phrase, but ambiguous. Again, it depends on whether its consensual. Wait for what?

Wait for consent.  You know that.  Come on.  If he's attracted to them "like a magnet" and "doesn't even wait" before he "just starts kissing them", he's talking about kissing women without their consent.  Seriously, man.  You seem like a person who understands words, how did we get here?

13 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

 

"And when you're a star, they let you do it."

Key phrase, because it establishes that he might be talking about consensual situations. (He seems to be referring to people who allow stars to move very quickly.)

Key phrase absolutely.  He doesn't say they WANT you to do it.  He says they LET you do it.  That's not consent.  That's being afraid -- how do they stop a large man with billions of dollars and his own security team?  How do they stop him if he doesn't wait?  They can't fend him off, he's 300 pounds.  If they accuse him later, they'll be dismissed by people like you.  They LET him do it because they've been given no choice in the matter.  That is assault.

15 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

 

"You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything"

Again, key word here is 'can'. He's not claiming any concrete action on his part, just that stars 'can' do that.

Actually, the key word is "anything."  Or maybe "Pussy."  Hell, maybe the key word is "Grab."  Does grab sound like consent?  

You're being willfully ignorant as to the actual meaning of the words Donald Trump is using.

What would he have to say for you to believe him?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

Wait for consent.  You know that.

No, you're imagining that's what he means. It's not there.

1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

He doesn't say they WANT you to do it.  He says they LET you do it.  That's not consent.  That's being afraid

If a girl lets you kiss her, she's afraid of you? You're just imagining the meaning, not sticking with what he actually says here.

2 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Does grab sound like consent? 

No, it's clearly ambiguous. Either way, Trump doesn't claim to do that. He simply says stars can do that.

3 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

What would he have to say for you to believe him?

Not sure what you mean here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

No, you're imagining that's what he means. It's not there.

If a girl lets you kiss her, she's afraid of you? You're just imagining the meaning, not sticking with what he actually says here.

No, it's clearly ambiguous. Either way, Trump doesn't claim to do that. He simply says stars can do that.

Not sure what you mean here.

 

If a girl "lets" me kiss her because I just go straight to her like a magnet and start kissing her without waiting?  We've never met before, we're not in relationship, I've just gone up to this woman without even saying a word and started kissing her?  Yes, actually -- it is much more likely that she is afraid of me than to think that she's happy about this. 

I don't think you are actually stupid, so I can only conclude that you are intentionally being stupid.

Why?

I am asking you what are the words that Donald Trump would have to be recorded saying, to convince you that he was guilty of sexual assault?

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

We've never met before, we're not in relationship, I've just gone up to this woman without even saying a word and started kissing her?

Trump didn't say he's referring to situations where he's never met a woman before, or that he's talking about situations where he goes up without even saying a word.

Again, you're just making this up. It's not in the quotation.

2 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I am asking you what are the words that Donald Trump would have to be recorded saying, to convince you that he was guilty of sexual assault?

If he *actually said* he had done that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

 

If he *actually said* he had done that.

HE DID.

But okay.  Fine.  Let me try this from a different angle.

If somebody...you, me, Donald Trump, anybody...went up to a random girl and start kissing them and the woman actually fought them off, would you consider THAT to have been assault?  If the woman was definitely very clearly not "letting" him do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

If somebody...you, me, Donald Trump, anybody...went up to a random girl and start kissing them and the woman actually fought them off, would you consider THAT to have been assault?  If the woman was definitely very clearly not "letting" him do it?

Then that wouldn't be the sort of situation Trump was referring to in the audio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Then that wouldn't be the sort of situation Trump was referring to in the audio.

Sure, great.  But what is your answer to the question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Sure, great.  But what is your answer to the question?

It sounds like it wouldn't be consensual. Whether it would meet the legal definition of 'sexual assault', I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

It sounds like it wouldn't be consensual. Whether it would meet the legal definition of 'sexual assault', I don't know.

Ok, but we're not talking about arrests here.  This isn't a law quiz.

So if somebody...you, me, Donald Trump, anybody, goes up to a random woman and starts kissing her and she physically fights him off, we at least agree that it wasn't consensual, and you're at least allowing for the possibility that it would be sexual assault.

Now:  How does Donald Trump know how a woman will react when he just starts kissing them, given that he doesn't even wait to see?  

If her fighting him off is how we're going to define consent and potentially sexual assault, how does he know whether he's crossing that line until he gives the woman cause to physically fight him off?

He doesn't.  

And this isn't theoretical:  this is what Donald Trump is TELLING us that he, personally, does.

""I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And then we move to this piece:

"And when you're a star, they let you do it.  You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything."

Who is "You"?  Billy Bush?  Billy Bush WAS a star, at the time of the recording.  He had his own TV show.  Is he teaching Billy Bush that Billy Bush can grab women by the pussy?

Even if he is, how did Donald Trump learn that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Patine said:

@vcczar @pilight @CPE @Actinguy @SilentLiberty @Conservative Elector 2 @Hestia11 A little factoid about Canadian politics that all of you might find amazing shocking - Canadian politicians in elected offices are not actually de facto immune to arrest, trial, conviction, and even incarceration (we haven't had capital punishment here since the mid-70's) while in office, and fair number have been so, including a whole Executive Council (basically, the Government) of a whole Province (the Devine Government in Saskatchewan in the mid '80's for a massive embezzlement scheme) and my own long-term MP, Peter Goldring (whom I never voted for, as he was Reform, then CA, then Conservative, and was a slum landlord owner, and someone I knew who had worked on his electoral campaign team said he was a sleazy man) for impaired driving. There are other incidents of such, as well - including several that involve sex crimes - involving a former Yukon Premier who had apparently sexually assaulted several First Nations women. Even the Prime Minister of Canada could not "shoot someone dead in public on Young Street," (a main artery, thoroughfare, and business centre in Toronto, Canada's largest city - and apparently now bigger than Chicago, but still smaller than LA) or "grab 'em by the *ahem*" like Donald Trump boasted about his ability to get away with freely. Not only is de facto immunity to criminal prosecution not the case, there is ABSOLUTELY NO official in Canada today who can grant pardons by their own discretion and power, and let those granted jump the long, grinding "soup line," the Canadian judicial system demands to qualify for a pardon, if one even qualifies. Wouldn't it be nice if the United States, with the motto, "And Justice for All," on it's Supreme Court building, or the United Kingdom, with a similar pompous, but equally vain, motto on the Old Bailey, or France, with high pretenses, in theory, on justice, lacked de facto untouchable elected political leaders - especially given all three of those nations have governments, and past governments, absolutely chalk full - just seething - with criminals, getting away with vile crimes, Scott free.

Agreed.  I have lived in Canada before (won't publicly say which province for informational security reasons), and I have always admired the fact that the major Canadian political parties seem to hold each other to account much better than most other parts of the world.  In other words, there is a standard of conduct for MPs/MLAs that is unilaterally enforced across party lines without the party of the infringer claiming political victimization.

Such a system would be impossible to implement in the part of the world where I live, both parties would simply use it to conjure up bogus charges against the other to play political games when in government.  Power corrupts.

4 hours ago, Actinguy said:

I am a straight white man

Please do not feel as if I am trying to incite or provoke a controversial argument with my commentary, but how does your sexual orientation, race, and sex factor in when considering whether you, personally, are "better off" when compared to four years ago (I despise such vague terminology, "better off" can potentially refer to many different individual factors, such as health, financial status, personal-life, etc.)  Honestly, I disdain the identity politics espoused by the left and right wing parties in most Western countries; for me, I view it as disingenuous at best to basically divide an electorate up into the lowest common denominator in terms of demographics.  Surely you must realize that there are LGBT individuals, minorities, and women that would identify as "better off" compared to four years ago, and some may even support President Trump, correct?  Conversely, there are sure to be heterosexual white men who would proclaim that they are not "better off", right?  Life is a lot more nuanced and complex than just dividing people into groups based off of demographics.  Once again, I am not trying to incite an argument or attack your viewpoint, just offering my thoughts and opinion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...