Trump Presidency

[IrishLax]

If the DNC and Clinton had immediately come out blasting DWS and demanding her resignation, she probably would've held on to Bernie Sanders supporters... and won the election. Instead she thanked her and gave her an honorary position.

If Clinton had called out Podesta for his bigoted comments and immediately fired him, she probably would've done better in the Latino and Christian demographics... and won the election. Instead she and Tim Kaine pretended there wasn't a problem despite calls from Catholic leaders, etc. to condemn the statements and apologize.

If Clinton had expressed disgust at the media collusion and fired anyone involved the corruption, she probably would've scored points with the 70% of Americans who feel the media is intentionally biased and don't care for that... and won the election. Instead her campaign said "no comment" despite the damning proof of collusion and most of the mainstream media tried to pretend people were silly for caring about ethics.

But each time, she refused to do the right thing and showed she was complicit in and accepting of unethical and unsavory behavior. And even after losing to freaking Trump of all people, her party still doesn't even want to talk about what they did wrong and just wants to point the finger at everyone else. You know what they say about the four pointing right back...

Winning the next election comes down to whether they truly learn their lessons from the Clinton/DNC disaster, or whether they continue to blame everyone else but themselves.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Yes, what Democracts are pissed about is that they got caught with their pants down by the leaks and they continue to try to obfuscate the problem. The problem was not the hacking... the problem is what the hacking revealed about the media and the Democrat party.

Nobody would care that Russians leaked documents if the documents didn't show the party being corrupt, racist, bigoted, and unethical. But the leaks shown a light on the corruption and bias many assumed existed, and it confirmed for some voters the idea that Clinton & Co. needed to be stopped no matter how unpalatable Trump was.

They're salty that they lost and doubly salty that they got exposed for their hypocrisy while doing it. Instead of focusing on "we lost because it was exposed that we had the party chief rigging primaries, the campaign chief degrading Latino/Hispanic voters, and the media colluding with us against Trump" it was "we lost because we were hacked." Both are true, but one focuses on the symptom not the disease.

It's time for some goddamn introspection to fix the party.

To add: "We lost because everyone in America is racist."

 

[woolybug25]

Exactly. If China had hacked the NYPD and found proof that Trump was running a prostitution ring and people voted for Hillary as a result, that would be just as valid. It doesn't make it GOOD that we got hacked, but the hacking doesn't excuse the underlying behavior.

I also love how Wikileaks is literally the worst thing ever unless you're the guy formerly known as Bradley Manning.

So I am genuinely interested in how you don't see the parallel here.

A foreign power hacking us in efforts to steer an election = Ends justify means

An officer leaks files showing our military mowing down civilians = traitor


I'm not saying that I agree with Manning being pardoned (I honestly think it's a power play to eventually force someone to do the same with Snowden), but your logic here seems a bit disconnected. Between Snowden and Manning, the latter's leak was far more disturbing to me. The video of a helicopter killing civilians without mercy was sickening.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

If the DNC and Clinton had immediately come out blasting DWS and demanding her resignation, she probably would've held on to Bernie Sanders supporters... and won the election. Instead she thanked her and gave her an honorary position.

If Clinton had called out Podesta for his bigoted comments and immediately fired him, she probably would've done better in the Latino and Christian demographics... and won the election. Instead she and Tim Kaine pretended there wasn't a problem despite calls from Catholic leaders, etc. to condemn the statements and apologize.

If Clinton had expressed disgust at the media collusion and fired anyone involved the corruption, she probably would've scored points with the 70% of Americans who feel the media is intentionally biased and don't care for that... and won the election. Instead her campaign said "no comment" despite the damning proof of collusion and most of the mainstream media tried to pretend people were silly for caring about ethics.

But each time, she refused to do the right thing and showed she was complicit in and accepting of unethical and unsavory behavior. And even after losing to freaking Trump of all people, her party still doesn't even want to talk about what they did wrong and just wants to point the finger at everyone else. You know what they say about the four pointing right back...

Winning the next election comes down to whether they truly learn their lessons from the Clinton/DNC disaster, or whether they continue to blame everyone else but themselves.

100%

And the way it's going at the moment, I don't think anything is going to change within that party in four years. I think it's a real possibility that Trump can go for eight simply because the Dems are so out of touch, naive, and arrogant. Perfect example: See golden boy Cory Booker. That dude is supposedly someone they think can run/win a general election, yet at the last senate vote, the dude gave a middle finger to progressives because he's bought by big pharma. The Popular Left is going to destroy him, but the Establishment Left think he's a sure thing. It's unreal.

 

[dublinirish]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Somewhere behind that shit is Lincoln, downstage, seated, dour, gripping granite armrests, wondering why the fuck he ever bothered. <a href="https://t.co/4Zk2jMpDIo">pic.twitter.com/4Zk2jMpDIo</a></p>— David Simon (@AoDespair) <a href="https://twitter.com/AoDespair/status/822067210948669442">January 19, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Irish#1]

If the DNC and Clinton had immediately come out blasting DWS and demanding her resignation, she probably would've held on to Bernie Sanders supporters... and won the election. Instead she thanked her and gave her an honorary position.

If Clinton had called out Podesta for his bigoted comments and immediately fired him, she probably would've done better in the Latino and Christian demographics... and won the election. Instead she and Tim Kaine pretended there wasn't a problem despite calls from Catholic leaders, etc. to condemn the statements and apologize.

If Clinton had expressed disgust at the media collusion and fired anyone involved the corruption, she probably would've scored points with the 70% of Americans who feel the media is intentionally biased and don't care for that... and won the election. Instead her campaign said "no comment" despite the damning proof of collusion and most of the mainstream media tried to pretend people were silly for caring about ethics.

But each time, she refused to do the right thing and showed she was complicit in and accepting of unethical and unsavory behavior. And even after losing to freaking Trump of all people, her party still doesn't even want to talk about what they did wrong and just wants to point the finger at everyone else. You know what they say about the four pointing right back...

Winning the next election comes down to whether they truly learn their lessons from the Clinton/DNC disaster, or whether they continue to blame everyone else but themselves.

With Trump getting elected, I also wonder if the Republicans learned their lesson as well?

 

[woolybug25]

100%

And the way it's going at the moment, I don't think anything is going to change within that party in four years. I think it's a real possibility that Trump can go for eight simply because the Dems are so out of touch, naive, and arrogant. Perfect example: See golden boy Cory Booker. That dude is supposedly someone they think can run/win a general election, yet at the last senate vote, the dude gave a middle finger to progressives because he's bought by big pharma. The Popular Left is going to destroy him, but the Establishment Left think he's a sure thing. It's unreal.

L. O. L.

Two things:

1) Pretty funny that you think a guy that just lost the popular vote to the worst democratic candidate in history. One being investigated by the FBI and being hacked by the Russians to leak damning info, Is a sure thing to beat any candidate from that same party in four years. That's laughable. Biden for instance, would have lambasted Trump in this election. You are drawing a parallel that isn't there on a false premise.

2) If you want to talk about big pharma, have you taken a look under your party's own hood lately? Republicans aren't exactly turning their noses to them.

 

[connor_in]

 

[BleedBlueGold]

L. O. L.

Two things:

1) Pretty funny that you think a guy that just lost the popular vote to the worst democratic candidate in history. One being investigated by the FBI and being hacked by the Russians to leak damning info, Is a sure thing to beat any candidate from that same party in four years. That's laughable. Biden for instance, would have lambasted Trump in this election. You are drawing a parallel that isn't there on a false premise.

2) If you want to talk about big pharma, have you taken a look under your party's own hood lately? Republicans aren't exactly turning their noses to them.

1) You're underestimating what Trump represented to a lot of people in this country. I agree that almost any other left-wing candidate can probably beat him in the next election. I just think that if the DNC props up another establishment type, they're going to be in for another long fight, that could very easily result in a similar outcome. *None of this takes into consideration the high likelihood that Trump will self-implode and lose a tremendous amount of his supporters. He won almost entirely because he won the rust belt, and if he helps those people, they're going to continue to support him and Dems will have to find another path to victory. If he doesn't, they'll all turn back blue and leave Trump out to dry in the next election. It'll be impossible for Trump get re-elected w/o the support of the rust belt states.

2) What's laughable to me is your assumption that I'm a Republican. I've posted my fair share of opinions in political threads, and anyone paying attention would see that I try not to associate myself with any party. *Also, all you did with that remark regarding Booker is to turn a blind eye to what's happening on the Left and immediately point a finger at the Right. That's not productive.

 

[woolybug25]

1) You're underestimating what Trump represented to a lot of people in this country. I agree that almost any other left-wing candidate can probably beat him in the next election. I just think that if the DNC props up another establishment type, they're going to be in for another long fight, that could very easily result in a similar outcome. *None of this takes into consideration the high likelihood that Trump will self-implode and lose a tremendous amount of his supporters. He won almost entirely because he won the rust belt, and if he helps those people, they're going to continue to support him and Dems will have to find another path to victory. If he doesn't, they'll all turn back blue and leave Trump out to dry in the next election. It'll be impossible for Trump get re-elected w/o the support of the rust belt states.

2) What's laughable to me is your assumption that I'm a Republican. I've posted my fair share of opinions in political threads, and anyone paying attention would see that I try not to associate myself with any party. *Also, all you did with that remark regarding Booker is to turn a blind eye to what's happening on the Left and immediately point a finger at the Right. That's not productive.

1) Again... the worst candidate ever beat Trump in the popular. If you think Hillary represents the democrats as a whole. You're sorely mistaken. You're talking about a party whose current president has a 60% approval rating.

2) ahh... you're one of those "I'm not any party, but I agree with every stanch from the left/right"?

 

[BleedBlueGold]

1) Again... the worst candidate ever beat Trump in the popular. If you think Hillary represents the democrats as a whole. You're sorely mistaken. You're talking about a party whose current president has a 60% approval rating.

2) ahh... you're one of those "I'm not any party, but I agree with every stanch from the left/right"?

1) Winning the popular vote doesn't get you into the WH so what's your point?

Bernie Sanders won the rust belt over Clinton. The DNC did everything they could to prevent Bernie from being the candidate. The rust belt then switched from blue, to supporting Trump. Why? It's because they don't trust establishment democrats. Simple as that. And if the left can't figure this concept out, they're going to keep winning the big cities, and keep losing everywhere else. It's not about just Hillary.

2) That's pretty insulting. Do you think I'm incapable of researching policy/partisan views and coming up with my own opinion that may sometimes not toe a particular party line?

 

[woolybug25]

1) Winning the popular vote doesn't get you into the WH so what's your point?

Bernie Sanders won the rust belt over Clinton. The DNC did everything they could to prevent Bernie from being the candidate. The rust belt then switched from blue, to supporting Trump. Why? It's because they don't trust establishment democrats. Simple as that. And if the left can't figure this concept out, they're going to keep winning the big cities, and keep losing everywhere else. It's not about just Hillary.

2) That's pretty insulting. Do you think I'm incapable of researching policy/partisan views and coming up with my own opinion that may sometimes not toe a particular party line?

1) You're the one trying to make the connection between Hillary losing and the democrats being done. You're making my argument for me. I bring up the popular vote simply because more people actually voted for the worst candidate the Dems have ever put out over Trump, but you think that it shows they can't win in four years with a better candidate. You brought up Benie. He polled better than Trump in the Rustbelt too. How do any of these facts point to them not having a chance in four years?

2) Since I've never seen you take any other viewpoint, apparently you are not.

 

[RDU Irish]

Four years of watching all the bed wetters lament over every Trump tweet as the end of the world as we know it will likely create an environment in which he can be 10x worse and nobody will care.

He will be judged on results, not words. All this bickering is meaningless - I am encouraged by the reforms I see being moved to the front of the line.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

1) You're the one trying to make the connection between Hillary losing and the democrats being done. You're making my argument for me. I bring up the popular vote simply because more people actually voted for the worst candidate the Dems have ever put out over Trump, but you think that it shows they can't win in four years with a better candidate. You brought up Benie. He polled better than Trump in the Rustbelt too. How do any of these facts point to them not having a chance in four years?

2) Since I've never seen you take any other viewpoint, apparently you are not.

I said IF the Dems keep propping up establishment type, fake-progressives, they will have problems. If they move towards supporting more populist policies, get back to supporting the working class demographic, and back away from the power of lobbying, they should steam roll these elections. Bernie polled better because he represented the anti-establishment, progressive populists. The DNC shut that shit down and if they do it again, there's a better than good chance they'll wind up with similar results.

Dude, go back and read the Presidential Horse Race thread. Unless you're just trying to troll me, I honestly can't comprehend how you think I'm a Republican just because I've blasted the establishment DNC for being corrupt. I've railed on Republicans just as much.

 

[wizards8507]

So I am genuinely interested in how you don't see the parallel here.

A foreign power hacking us in efforts to steer an election = Ends justify means

An officer leaks files showing our military mowing down civilians = traitor

I'm not saying that I agree with Manning being pardoned (I honestly think it's a power play to eventually force someone to do the same with Snowden), but your logic here seems a bit disconnected. Between Snowden and Manning, the latter's leak was far more disturbing to me. The video of a helicopter killing civilians without mercy was sickening.

A few things, somewhat disconnected from one another.

1. A foreign power did not hack "us," as in "The United States of America." They hacked the DNC. Hacking the DNC or the RNC or The Walt Disney Company or The University of Notre Dame is nowhere near the same thing as leaking information from the United States military.

2. If there was collusion between the hackers and the Trump campaign, people should be put in prison.

3. Not every situation has room for only one good guy and one bad guy. I can hold the position that Bradley Manning is a traitor simultaneously with the position that the Granai airstrike was wrong. I can also hold the position that the DNC hackers are criminals simultaneously with the position that what they revealed about the DNC is disturbing.

I haven't seen anyone on the right trying to defend the DNC hack as a good thing, especially if it was actually sanctioned by Putin himself. Even many on the Left have been fairly consistent with the opinion that the DNC hacks as well as the Manning leaks are both major problems. The only huge hypocrisy I see is from Obama himself, whose pardoning of Manning undermines the Left's "Trump is illegitimate" argument.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

See, this is the hypocrisy epitomized. I love you, Bogs... but this post is exactly what I'm talking about.

You (and everyone else) rightfully criticized Trump for the "grab them by the pussy" audio that was leaked. Audio he didn't know was being recorded, and there was no consent for it to be released.

But, we're not allowed to criticize Democrats for bigoted and racist and corrupt content that was leaked? How is that logically consistent much less fair?

Man. I hate disagreements on IE. Here is why. In person, you are exactly the kind of acquaintance I value, particularly with a topic like this. One of my definitions of wealth is having one, or more friends that you can disagree with on any or even every issue, and find value, and wisdom in the discourse. You are the kind of person I would feel comfortable disagreeing with, because the conversation would be so enlightening.

In that spirit I will continue.

I say the difference between the email comments and the video were; A) context, B) content, C) actor, and D) level of pathology.

With the video tape you have a raw recording, that starts before the words in question were uttered. There was no reason for these words to be uttered. In other words, grabbing pussy was not a topic of conversation previously, and of course did not remain a topic of conversation after the exchange.

No one in any of the DNC hacked emails talked about sexual assault in my understanding. And I will clearly state that I think DJT's own words describe actions in toto constitute an incident of sexual assault.

Once again, taking one, two, or three emails out of 40,000 dumped which together, (the two or three,) are only a fraction of the exchange that is in question, makes the email situation totally different than Trumps utterances.

Additionally, about the context, if person A and B are standing together, and person A types on his computer, 'I would like to kill you,' or 'I would like to kill person B' is that the same as if they were standing face to face, and person A said that to person B? I don't think so. From criminal law to psychology, there is clearly a different weight given to the printed word versus the spoken word.

And let's not miss an important point in this conversation. If Hillary Clinton typed, or spoke "Fuck Catholics!", or better yet, "Grab Catholics by the Pussy!" I would be interested in seeing her locked up. My point. Hillary Clinton didn't say any of these things. For all of her shortcomings, she isn't the actor that said the comments you decry. So it is different on that level. These people talking about a couple of rich individual who converted to Catholicism, were being discussed by two minions! One of whom left HRC's employ way before the documents were released, didn't she?

As far as the DNC utterances, I would love to say that they were grossly inappropriate, because I personally have a pet peeve with malicious gossips, really, any one who is about making themselves feel bigger or badder. But the fact of the matter is, that was pretty usual stuff. However, what DJT said, isn't/wasn't the pathology of his comments was much darker.

As well as the fact that, and we have discussed it in many threads on this board, particularly in those related to Jameis Winston and FSU, that our culture sends really poor messages to our young men and boys. You and I both know that someone somewhere set a behavioral queue after hearing that recording.

So in summary, criticize who you want. Saying nasty, backstabbing, gossipy, and stupid things is a particular pet peve of mine. I think John Podesta is as big of a loser as DJT. Hillary got what she deserved having him running her campaign. See? But, instead, I am afraid we are going to get what we deserve by electing DJT.

So, finally don't equate any of these things others say, or that are parts of incomplete conversations, therefore out of context, with complete clear statements made by Trump.

My other problem is using sins of others to diminish anyone's sins. Are you a parent? I've been a parent so long, and have so many kids that I've seen most everything. So when I have one of my kids dead to rights for a violation, you know the one thing I won't take? Is if they try to mitigate their own mistake, by bringing up someone else's bad behavior.

That may in fact be my own big get out of this conversation. I feel that DJT supporters oft say, yes my candidate is awful, but this other person did this, that, and the other thing. Look they're ten times worse.

I'd rather just sit down with most of those people for a beer, and all agree that they're all fucked up, and discuss how do we dig ourselves out of this mess!

 

[IrishLax]

L. O. L.

Two things:

1) Pretty funny that you think a guy that just lost the popular vote to the worst democratic candidate in history. One being investigated by the FBI and being hacked by the Russians to leak damning info, Is a sure thing to beat any candidate from that same party in four years. That's laughable. Biden for instance, would have lambasted Trump in this election. You are drawing a parallel that isn't there on a false premise.

2) If you want to talk about big pharma, have you taken a look under your party's own hood lately? Republicans aren't exactly turning their noses to them.

1) Biden would've probably beaten Trump by 5% in the popular vote and a landslide in the electoral.

2) People expect Republicans to be corporatists... at some point Democrats will realize saying "but the other guy is worse! don't pay attention to our actions, because at least we're not that other guy!" doesn't work for their base.

For example, I've voted for Mark Warner in my state every time he's been on the ballot. Was an AWESOME governor. After the pharma vote, unless his office gets back to me with some real answers (and I'm not holding my breath...) he's never getting another vote for me... I'll abstain or vote for someone else depending on who is running.

On a national scale, Cory Booker is the new "chosen one"... and they're just conveniently ignoring his checkered past and checkered present. It's not hard to find many articles out there about his shadiness, and this recent vote is just another example. They're in for a rude awakening if they think he's the "next Obama" just because he's black and well-spoken. The party needs people that walk-the-walk and I'm seeing no indication they're committed to finding/supporting those kinds of true believers.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

A few things, somewhat disconnected from one another.

1. A foreign power did not hack "us," as in "The United States of America." They hacked the DNC. Hacking the DNC or the RNC or The Walt Disney Company or The University of Notre Dame is nowhere near the same thing as leaking information from the United States military.

2. If there was collusion between the hackers and the Trump campaign, people should be put in prison.

3. Not every situation has room for only one good guy and one bad guy. I can hold the position that Bradley Manning is a traitor simultaneously with the position that the Granai airstrike was wrong. I can also hold the position that the DNC hackers are criminals simultaneously with the position that what they revealed about the DNC is disturbing.

I haven't seen anyone on the right trying to defend the DNC hack as a good thing, especially if it was actually sanctioned by Putin himself. Even many on the Left have been fairly consistent with the opinion that the DNC hacks as well as the Manning leaks are both major problems. The only huge hypocrisy I see is from Obama himself, whose pardoning of Manning undermines the Left's "Trump is illegitimate" argument.

Every time you post I can see it clearly, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

The only point worth mentioning is the highlighted quote. Now I realize that some people don't know what hypocrisy means. Obama isn't the left. Obama doesn't believe that the election was thrown, or that Trump is an illegitimate. The rationalizations, and conflation one had to go through to write a single sentence like this is staggering.

 

[wizards8507]

Every time you post I can see it clearly, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

The only point worth mentioning is the highlighted quote. Now I realize that some people don't know what hypocrisy means. Obama isn't the left. Obama doesn't believe that the election was thrown, or that Trump is an illegitimate. The rationalizations, and conflation one had to go through to write a single sentence like this is staggering.

There's no rationalization or conflation, it was just a poor choice of words. Try this if you don't like "hypocrisy":

Obama is undermining the narrative of his own party. Maybe it's not his own personal narrative, but the Democrat line is that Trump is an illegitimate president-elect due to the threat that leakers pose to our national security and the democratic process. By Obama commuting the sentence of a notorious leaker, he delegitimizes the narrative that leaks are dangerous and evil.

 

[NorthDakota]

Hahaha.... Are you kidding me on the bolded?

He was sued literally thousands of times for everything from fraud, discrimatory housing, assault to even attempted rape. All before he ran. These didn't all just come out when he decided to run for president, he has past allegations all the way back to the '70's. He had very public attacks on celebrities and positioned himself as a philanderer. What in the hell are you talking about?

I just Googled "Mitt Romney Sued" and got a variety of different stuff. I just kinda assume any successful businessman is going to get sued often. Even guys perceived as a good dude. I haven't been alive long enough to really know the public perception of the Don though.

 

[wizards8507]

I cant tell if you're being facetious.

Both. Why is he not liable for a company he owns?

That's dumb. Disney gets sued for stupid shit every day. Some idiot looking for a payday claims he was groped by Donald Duck. That doesn't mean Bob Iger (CEO) or Laurene Powell Jobs (largest shareholder) are molesters.

But no, Donald Trump probably isn't an upstanding fellow.

 

[woolybug25]

I just Googled "Mitt Romney Sued" and got a variety of different stuff. I just kinda assume any successful businessman is going to get sued often. Even guys perceived as a good dude. I haven't been alive long enough to really know the public perception of the Don though.

Was Mitt ever sued for fraud? What about assault? Attempted rape?

 

[IrishLax]

I just Googled "Mitt Romney Sued" and got a variety of different stuff. I just kinda assume any successful businessman is going to get sued often. Even guys perceived as a good dude. I haven't been alive long enough to really know the public perception of the Don though.

Yes, and the vast majority of them are pretty ridiculous. For example, my firm was dragged into a lawsuit this year because a French photographer tried to sit on a chain between two bollards, fell over, allegedly hurt himself, claimed he couldn't work for a whole year because of his injury, and sued the building owner for a crazy amount of damages.

The bollards on the sidewalk were installed as part of a repair program we ran, so naturally this photographer and his lawyer tried to claim there was "negligence" for the design/installation...

...needless to say, the Frenchie didn't win. But you can sue someone over anything. The number of lawsuits doesn't matter, what matters is the content of the suit and whether the allegations have merit.

 

[wizards8507]

Was Mitt ever sued for fraud? What about assault? Attempted rape?

Who cares? Being sued means literally nothing. I can sue you tomorrow for attempted rape and that would have literally no bearing on your character. Filing a lawsuit doesn't make it so, especially when you have a "deep pockets" defendant.

 

[woolybug25]

Who cares? Being sued means literally nothing. I can sue you tomorrow for attempted rape and that would have literally no bearing on your character. Filing a lawsuit doesn't make it so, especially when you have a "deep pockets" defendant.

So being consistently accused of poor behavior over the course of decades should simply have no bearing?

Ok then...

Deep pockets just allow you to get away with it. Most lawsuits for Trump weren't dismissed in court, they were settled out of court for big dollars.

But whatever makes you sleep good at night.

 

[wizards8507]

So being consistently accused of poor behavior over the course of decades should simply have no bearing?

Ok then...

Deep pockets just allow you to get away with it. Most lawsuits for Trump weren't dismissed in court, they were settled out of court for big dollars.

But whatever makes you sleep good at night.

There's enough confirmed information to make me confident that Trump is a sleazeball that I don't feel the need to include unsubstantiated allegations in his list of offenses.

 

[Irish#1]

Yes, and the vast majority of them are pretty ridiculous. For example, my firm was dragged into a lawsuit this year because a French photographer tried to sit on a chain between two bollards, fell over, allegedly hurt himself, claimed he couldn't work for a whole year because of his injury, and sued the building owner for a crazy amount of damages.

The bollards on the sidewalk were installed as part of a repair program we ran, so naturally this photographer and his lawyer tried to claim there was "negligence" for the design/installation...

...needless to say, the Frenchie didn't win. But you can sue someone over anything. The number of lawsuits doesn't matter, what matters is the content of the suit and whether the allegations have merit.

The judge should have been given a quick kick in the nuts for allowing this suit to even make it into the courts. The only people who use a chain to sit on are circus acts and the prostitute above my bed.

 

[ulukinatme]

That's dumb. Disney gets sued for stupid shit every day. Some idiot looking for a payday claims he was groped by Donald Duck. That doesn't mean Bob Iger (CEO) or Laurene Powell Jobs (largest shareholder) are molesters.

But no, Donald Trump probably isn't an upstanding fellow.

Donald Duck is a womanizing, fascist, racist, sexist, hate mongerer. He should be evicted from Disney Land!

 

[ACamp1900]

Donald Duck is a womanizing, fascist, racist, sexist, hate mongerer. He should be evicted from Disney Land!

He's always been my fav cartoon character for a reason.

 

[phgreek]

I'm not happy where the presidency has gone.

Donald Trump is just a more in your face Bill Clinton...but they have a similar "cloud" that follows them around.

AS for Hillary Clinton...I am steadfast in my faith and belief that four years of Hillary would have been a disaster, and I honestly don't know if Trump will be much better.

The Trump presidency is 100% symbolic. If people think crowing about his character "helps" to somehow wound his credibility and ability to lead...please. He is there because he is cold water in the face of political elites...ON BOTH SIDES. Sticking up for his character or impugning it are a total waste of time.

However, I would suggest most of the bitching here on IE about Trump is a veiled swipe at the character of those who aren't apoplectic about his ascendance to the helm. And that is where it starts to get funny.

I hope this president has a positive impact on the economy, and creates pathways out of poverty and chronic low income for people. I hope he has a positive impact on the lawlessness and rancor surrounding our immigration system. I hope he has a positive impact on educating people, particularly children stuck in bad schools. I hope he engages foreign entities with OUR best interest as his primary objective. I hope he presides over a fair and reasonable healthcare solution. I hope he finds a way to responsibly re-establish our Military readiness. I hope he forces some new controls on lobbyists and congressional entanglements. I hope he listens to Jason Chafetz and starts ripping chunks of Federal Bureaucracies out of DC (something I think folks on IE have been fans of since Whiskey brought it up).

Good luck Mr. Trump...please keep the "cloud" out of the Oval Office.