Yet another women accuses Trump of unwanted sexual advances--this time, it's a campaign staffer

You are trying to use our morals and standards to relate to people that lived 150 years ago. You might want to say people have not changed that much in the last 150 years but as a quick example, I will use our current topic. I could not begin to imagine what it takes to morally justify owning a slave. To force them to do labor and to beat them if they do not meet my wishes. To treat another human being in such a reprehensible manner. Still I will attempt to answer your question using a 21st century perspective.

1. The slave owner was not married or widowed.
2. The slave owner hid the affair just as a cheating husband would do today.
3. The wife didn't care because it was a slave and she did not feel threatened that her husband would leave her for a slave.
4. The wife was really mad but also ashamed so she did not document it for others to know or for people like you to read about 150 years later.
5. The wife knew and was really mad at her husband but had no means to do anything about it. She could not leave her husband because she had no means of income and who would marry an older divorced women back then
6. The wife was having sex with the male slaves so it would be hypocritical to complain.

 

DNA says otherwise.

https://psmag.com/news/how-slavery-changed-the-dna-of-african-americans

From the link:

"One explanation for this geographical bias could be that interracial marriages have been less frequent in Southern states. But this explanation appears to be wrong. The McGill researchers found that most of the European DNA among blacks today probably entered the African-American gene pool long before the Civil War, when the vast majority of blacks in the U.S. were slaves living in the South. The genetic patterns observed by the researchers suggest that, for at least a century before the Civil War, there was ongoing admixture between blacks and whites. After slavery ended, this interracial mixing dropped off steeply.

 

The media are continually slandered by Trump, members of his cult of personality, and his troll friends of Olgino. It is actually very rare that I see the media do anything to deserve the fake bad reputation that the above are continually attempting to give them. The attack on our media is part of the sustained attack on our society by hostile foreign agents. The media do not deserve this constant slandering; they are not at all as dishonest as you claim they are. You are spewing disinformation aimed at disrupting and destroying our societal order, at fomenting chaos and destruction. Trump also does this by his words, but I am sure it is due to a very different motive. He and the Russians are in perfect harmony, but for different reasons. It does, unfortunately, also indicate that, yes, Trump is a Russian asset -- not an agent, necessarily, but a useful idiot and a tool for them to use against the USA.

The fundamental problem here is that Trump has set himself up against the facts on numerous issues. He practically issues ultimatums that you can either side with him (the populist who promises and brags of great accomplishments with no factual basis), or be against him. He is divisive by his words and attitude. HE calls the media "the enemy of the people." Repeatedly! Without any remorse or apology, he just says or tweets it, with obviously no regard for the impact that has coming from a sitting president, from someone in such an influential position, just as he apparently has no regard for the impacts of his other constant lies and misinformation, and his siding with enemies of our country even over our own intelligence, law enforcement, judicial, and independent media establishments. He doesn't appreciate the effects of his rhetoric on the country and on the world. He will say anything to "defend" himself in a twisted, narcissistic, destructive manner. In short, he lacks the character necessary to serve in such an office and does not deserve to be there.

Now, this doesn't mean Hillary Clinton did deserve to win, but enough about the damned Clintons. They are not an issue anymore. They are not in power. Why on earth can't you and the other trumpbots SHUT UP about them? They are irrelevant, a distraction and a deflection.

Seriously, can you ever discuss Trump without resorting to some nonsense about the Clintons? Do you only support Trump because he is as bad as you perceive the Clintons as having been, but being so under a different banner? Does that somehow suddenly make those wrongs right? Do you just want this destructive moron in office so he can teach the Democrats a lesson about how bad you think their recent presidents and presidential candidates have been?

 

You probably do not mean myself since I am no member of this Trump cult of personality. Still you included Clinton/Obama and i am well aware that both of those men have retained their approving members of their cult of personalities.

As to who belongs in the office of the president.

Well, I can name presidents far worse than Clinton or Obama or Trump that remained in those offices. One louse was shot as he and his wife were watching a play at Fords Theater in DC.

 

One thing never mentioned by the Trump haters is the almost daily reports made to the public by Trump in e mail. I get his reports virtually daily. I do not mess with his tweets. i enjoy the factual reports. Sample.

BTW, if this ever makes the media, the press reports, i will be shocked.

 

Neither Obama nor Bill Clinton has any appreciable cult of personality. They certainly never went out of their way to create one. Neither was a populst con man waging a propaganda war with his own country on a daily basis.

 

Putin never would agree with this posters following remarks. Not in a million years. Putin sees Trump as an enemy far more than a pal.

Why?
Trump keeps Armored forces on Russia's border
Trump keeps slapping Russia with sanctions
Trump should try to assist Russia recover, not to try to drive it into the dark ages.

Remarks made to me.

 

Both of them owned the media. Trump does not own the media. Trump has to wage a defense vs the media. Both Clinton and Obama had a cult following. Including the media.

 

Avanatti will always be able to find an MSM camera to cover him. Living Dead, Esq. - it's on his card.

 

Ok,

 

I do not understand the change of your argument.

I never at any point, nay I shall never at any time, declare Slaves deserved lousy treatment.

I am trying my best to discover the basis of your 6 points. I must presume you hold all 6 views.

I personally am of the personality type that would not beat slaves. Nor rape the women. I believe due to my personal management experience fair treatment gets you a lot further. I treated my men in the Army fairly. I managed to get awards for the platoon. I have managed men in several fields. 1. my own auto shop. Fair was my system. 2. My own machine shop. Same thing. My work for a construction firm. Always fair. My ownership of real estate firms, an appraisal firm and a loan firm ... totally fair to all the employees.

Personally, I do not know a way I would ever try to hold or use a slave in any fashion.

 

Racist southerners are, as always, almost all Democrats.
The DP has always been the party of systemic institutional racism in America.

 

Nothing I say nor have said deserve the type of attack mounted against me above. NOTHING

 

But they try to dodge it by alleging they up and suddenly changed their minds and those black hearts turned red. Funny innit?

 

I doubt it. Waste of time - no billable hours.

 

Baby Baby steps... Cohen is testifying to 3 committee's, 1 run by the Senate Republicans (today) and 1 an open door setting...

And I guarantee you NOBODY is dragging him anywhere... He's dying to testify...... I know I would be, but I wouldn't have worked for that bag of crap in the first place.

P.S. I hope somebody punches that ********er Matt Gaetz in the face for his incredibly obvious witness tampering tweet today... That guy is the underwear stain in the butt crack of America... might even be below Jim Jordan on the scale of humanity...

 

He could probably bill Stormy for that..... or he could just call her later, as I'm sure she'll be watching too.... she's likely to be one of the primary topics...

 

I could only find 3 prominent Dixiecrats who switched parties. "A Dixiecrat is a Democrat."

"What is a Dixiecrat? A Democrat. A Dixiecrat is nothing but a Democrat in disguise. [...] The Dixiecrats in Washington, D.C., control the key committees that run the government. The only reason the Dixiecrats control these committees is because they have seniority. The only reason they have seniority is because they come from states where Negroes can’t vote. This is not even a government that’s based on democracy. It is not a government that is made up of representatives of the people. Half of the people in the South can’t even vote. Eastland is not even supposed to be in Washington. Half of the senators and congressmen who occupy these key positions in Washington, D.C., are there illegally, are there unconstitutionally." Malcolm X
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Malcolm_X

 

Huh? I am never accused you of having any particular point of view regarding slavery. I don't think you stated it nor was I interested it what it was. I am just addressing the article you spoke about the "rage of a white wife". You said / asked the question:

Basically it is drawing conclusion about slavery based on the reaction or lack of reaction of the white wife. I said this was hard for me to answer since I do not know what morality people had 150 years ago but if I had to give a 21st perspective on the question I gave 6 random answers off the top of my head on why or how the white wife reaction to this situation. Some were tongue and cheek but they are plausible answers. Not necessarily my view but potential answers to the question.

The very foundation of my point is you are trying to analyze an issue "did slave owners rape or have sex with their slaves?" is extremely difficult given the time that has passed and the lack of any significant amount of contemporary evidence that would still exist. It is not something people would normally record and to look for circumstantial evidence in DNA or writings only paints a limited answer. It is also my point that if we go outside hard evidence it is further complicated by the fact that people had different moral and view points than we do today.

Again , nice to know but I did not take in to account your personal beliefs in this discussion.
[

 

Is Stormy still taking Avenatti's calls?

 

Oh come on HC, tell that bullshit to somebody else. If this woman had video Trumpers would make excuses for it.

 

You haven't stumbled on something unique there. People will excuse damn near anything of their leader if he is perceived as protecting their tribe. People will always put their own self-interest above the morality of their leader and this is not a secret. See Virginia for the other side of the fence.

Moral outrage is used simply as a tool to remove a leader that you perceive as attacking your tribe. This is why I never gave much of a damn about any of these supposed sex scandals... be they on the Democratic side or the Republican side... I always saw them and continue to see them as an opposition party trying to override the decision of voters.

 

Is Bill Clinton still the darling of the left?

 

I did back in the 70's, stuck with me ever since.

 

Republican as back then. The party which did not give a home to the segregationist as did the Democrat party.