One more reason not to vote for Trump...

[phoenyx]

After looking at the article linked to at the bottom of this post, I just pin it as one more reason not to vote for Trump. Other civilized comments on the article are welcome. Here's an excerpt of said article:

**Sheena Monnin saw beauty pageants as [a] way to fulfill her potential – she never imagined they’d be the gateway through which Donald Trump would try to destroy her life. Even now, she insists, the debacle has not made her anti-pageant, just anti-Trump...

During that competition, according to Monnin, another contestant, Karina Brez of Florida, insisted to several women backstage mid-pageant that she already knew who the top five final contestants would be, and specifically, that she had seen the names of the pre-selected women listed in a notebook at the back of the stage.

Though Monnin never saw such a notebook herself, when contestants Brez had predicted were later selected, Monnin came to the conclusion that the pageant was rigged.

The Trump Organization denied allegations of favoritism and Brez later said what she had seen was a “rehearsal list” and that she was “joking”. Brez did not return the Guardian’s requests for comment.

But this year, Miss Universe judge Jeff Lee admitted in GQ that Trump – who from 1996 to 2015 owned or co-owned both Miss Universe and Miss USA – frequently had a say in which women made the final round. According to the story’s author, Burt Helm: “Lee will tell you that from 2005 until Donald Trump sold the Miss Universe pageant last year, the billionaire quietly handpicked as many as six semifinalists – ‘Trump cards’, they were called.” Helm said that lower-level beauty pageant picks were so often subject to “massaging” that this was considered an “open secret” among former contestants.

If so, this “open secret” had not been shared with Monnin, and she resigned her Miss Pennsylvania crown in protest.

But it wasn’t until she wrote a post on Facebook about the situation that things started getting out of hand...

Trump, having seen the post, did what he often does in the face of petty insults – he escalated the conflict exponentially. Specifically, he used his platform as a person in the public eye to cast aspersions on Monnin and impugn her reputation on national TV. Speaking on ABC’s Good Morning America the next day, Trump called Monnin’s claims “absolutely ridiculous” and her character worse.

“She suffers from a thing called ‘loser’s remorse’,” he said. “She lost, and if you looked at her compared to people who were in the top 15, you would understand why she was not in the top 15.”

Trump said his organization would be bringing a lawsuit against her, detailing his intentions in a second appearance on NBC’s Today. And when Monnin appeared on the same show days later to defend herself, Trump sued her for $10m for defamation.
**

Read more at: The Miss USA hopeful sued by Trump: 'There are ways to stand your ground'

 

[eflatminor]

Fine, I'll vote for Johnson.

Nothing in this world Trump could do or say could get me to vote for Hillary Clinton.

 

[phoenyx]

Fine, I'll vote for Johnson.

Nothing in this world Trump could do or say could get me to vote for Hillary Clinton.

As a general rule, I'm against Libertarianism, and after Samantha Bee interviewed Johnson, I am not making an exception for him. Jill Stein follows a lot of the principles that Bernie Sanders was espousing, so I'd go for her. I might go for Hillary if Jill Stein wasn't in the running, but it'd be a "lesser of evils" choice.

 

[Tehon]

Fine, I'll vote for Johnson.

Nothing in this world Trump could do or say could get me to vote for Hillary Clinton.

As a general rule, I'm against Libertarianism, and after Samantha Bee interviewed Johnson, I am not making an exception for him. Jill Stein follows a lot of the principles that Bernie Sanders was espousing, so I'd go for her. I might go for Hillary if Jill Stein wasn't in the running, but it'd be a "lesser of evils" choice.

The lesser of two evils is a trap and a losing proposition that has placed us in the representative predicament we are now faced with.

 

[320 Years of History]

I wonder how much chicanery and duplicitousness, all of which was for his own personal financial gain, folks who do support Trump will endure?

 

[Freewill]

Sigh the beauty pageant is a show nothing more nothing less. The only evidence, which is just hearsay, is a note book that may or may not have the names listed and if names were listed they may have only been in the order someone had guessed, who can know?

But being a show, and a pageant that Trump saved from oblivion, reputation is everything they should threaten to sue her. We will see if they actually do.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I am voting against the Democratic Party, which has long ceased to be an American political party. Any candidate belonging to that Party brings the Party with them, no matter how normal the candidate himself may be.

Ergo, I will not vote for Democrats under any circumstances.

 

[Freewill]

I am voting against the Democratic Party, which has long ceased to be an American political party. Any candidate belonging to that Party brings the Party with them, no matter how normal the candidate himself may be.

Ergo, I will not vote for Democrats under any circumstances.

And especially not a democrat with the name Clinton.

 

[phoenyx]

Just saw the following video from a youtuber I find to be very interesting, concerning why Hillary has surged in the polls over Trump. I agree with his take and would like to know what others here think of it...

 

[phoenyx]

Fine, I'll vote for Johnson.

Nothing in this world Trump could do or say could get me to vote for Hillary Clinton.

As a general rule, I'm against Libertarianism, and after Samantha Bee interviewed Johnson, I am not making an exception for him. Jill Stein follows a lot of the principles that Bernie Sanders was espousing, so I'd go for her. I might go for Hillary if Jill Stein wasn't in the running, but it'd be a "lesser of evils" choice.

The lesser of two evils is a trap and a losing proposition that has placed us in the representative predicament we are now faced with.

I think that's only true if there are more then 2 options, as is the current case. I definitely prefer Hillary over Trump and if it comes down to one of the 2, to me it's no contest.

 

[Bush92]

Fine, I'll vote for Johnson.

Nothing in this world Trump could do or say could get me to vote for Hillary Clinton.

So you your voting Billary by default. Sure that helps defeat her.

 

[eflatminor]

Fine, I'll vote for Johnson.

Nothing in this world Trump could do or say could get me to vote for Hillary Clinton.

So you your voting Billary by default. Sure that helps defeat her.

In my state, I guarantee you Hillary wins with or without my vote. It won't be close. So you're wrong, I'll not be helping her in any way, shape or form.

Now, were I in Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, etc...you'd have a point.

 

[Holos]

It seems your thread is specifically and restrictively inviting for reasons to vote for Trump, considering this is the Debate Zone. However, the intention for a debate is not clear, and the thread seems most greatly informative (both of what you have come upon and also posters in terms of political assessments) and as the OP I believe you should establish clear leads for the participants to choose their debating positions.

From what I understand, the article shared is promoting Trump's political campaign, if not by directly describing his activities, at least by acknowledging his engagements to what would be previously apolitical groups.

There isn't much space for a debate, only for opinions - which then tend to be raveled with collateral feelings.

 

[jwoodie]

After looking at the article linked to at the bottom of this post, I just pin it as one more reason not to vote for Trump. Other civilized comments on the article are welcome.

What makes you think that your comments are "civilized?" Your obsession with beauty pageants or your predisposition not to vote for Trump?

 

[Vigilante]

Latest revelation Cunton used 13 devices to get and send classified email.... 5 of those devices were broken up with a hammer by one of her aids...after a subpoena was issued to confiscate all devices she used as Secretary. Of State.... Destruction of evidence in an ongoing FBI investigation is a felony.....LOCK HER UP!!!!!!!!!

 

[phoenyx]

It seems your thread is specifically and restrictively inviting for reasons to vote for Trump, considering this is the Debate Zone. However, the intention for a debate is not clear, and the thread seems most greatly informative (both of what you have come upon and also posters in terms of political assessments) and as the OP I believe you should establish clear leads for the participants to choose their debating positions.

From what I understand, the article shared is promoting Trump's political campaign, if not by directly describing his activities, at least by acknowledging his engagements to what would be previously apolitical groups.

There isn't much space for a debate, only for opinions - which then tend to be raveled with collateral feelings.

Not sure how you came to the conclusion my goal was to promote Trump's campaign. The thread specifically states "One more reason not to vote for Trump", and the opening post is hardly a ringing endorsement of the man. I was hoping to spur discussion on all of the reasons why no one should vote for Trump, but it's also open to those who want to defend Trump.

 

[phoenyx]

After looking at the article linked to at the bottom of this post, I just pin it as one more reason not to vote for Trump. Other civilized comments on the article are welcome.

What makes you think that your comments are "civilized?"

I'm not using base insults, something that seems to be fairly common around in this forum, though not this subforum. Do you actually have any constructive comments on the subject, or did you just comment to put me down -.-?

 

[Holos]

It seems your thread is specifically and restrictively inviting for reasons to vote for Trump, considering this is the Debate Zone. However, the intention for a debate is not clear, and the thread seems most greatly informative (both of what you have come upon and also posters in terms of political assessments) and as the OP I believe you should establish clear leads for the participants to choose their debating positions.

From what I understand, the article shared is promoting Trump's political campaign, if not by directly describing his activities, at least by acknowledging his engagements to what would be previously apolitical groups.

There isn't much space for a debate, only for opinions - which then tend to be raveled with collateral feelings.

Not sure how you came to the conclusion my goal was to promote Trump's campaign. The thread specifically states "One more reason not to vote for Trump", and the opening post is hardly a ringing endorsement of the man. I was hoping to spur discussion on all of the reasons why no one should vote for Trump, but it's also open to those who want to defend Trump.

It's the Debate Zone.
You stated your position and did not provide any leads for differing positions.
So the differing positions are taken as unfulfilled in consideration of the Debate Zone.

I would greatly appreciate a discussion about reasons to consider and possibly further dismiss a candidate, but without a definite comprehension of politics as a contrast between the entire electorate and the whole of electors that discussion isn't made possible in terms of productive results.

 

[phoenyx]

It seems your thread is specifically and restrictively inviting for reasons to vote for Trump, considering this is the Debate Zone. However, the intention for a debate is not clear, and the thread seems most greatly informative (both of what you have come upon and also posters in terms of political assessments) and as the OP I believe you should establish clear leads for the participants to choose their debating positions.

From what I understand, the article shared is promoting Trump's political campaign, if not by directly describing his activities, at least by acknowledging his engagements to what would be previously apolitical groups.

There isn't much space for a debate, only for opinions - which then tend to be raveled with collateral feelings.

Not sure how you came to the conclusion my goal was to promote Trump's campaign. The thread specifically states "One more reason not to vote for Trump", and the opening post is hardly a ringing endorsement of the man. I was hoping to spur discussion on all of the reasons why no one should vote for Trump, but it's also open to those who want to defend Trump.

It's the Debate Zone.
You stated your position and did not provide any leads for differing positions.
So the differing positions are taken as unfulfilled in consideration of the Debate Zone.

I would greatly appreciate a discussion about reasons to consider and possibly further dismiss a candidate, but without a definite comprehension of politics as a contrast between the entire electorate and the whole of electors that discussion isn't made possible in terms of productive results.

I said people could comment on the material of the OP. What I meant was people could say if they agreed or disagreed with the gist of the article in the OP. It could have been done better. Perhaps I should make a new thread where we could debate what people consider the pros and cons of Trump.

 

[Holos]

It seems your thread is specifically and restrictively inviting for reasons to vote for Trump, considering this is the Debate Zone. However, the intention for a debate is not clear, and the thread seems most greatly informative (both of what you have come upon and also posters in terms of political assessments) and as the OP I believe you should establish clear leads for the participants to choose their debating positions.

From what I understand, the article shared is promoting Trump's political campaign, if not by directly describing his activities, at least by acknowledging his engagements to what would be previously apolitical groups.

There isn't much space for a debate, only for opinions - which then tend to be raveled with collateral feelings.

Not sure how you came to the conclusion my goal was to promote Trump's campaign. The thread specifically states "One more reason not to vote for Trump", and the opening post is hardly a ringing endorsement of the man. I was hoping to spur discussion on all of the reasons why no one should vote for Trump, but it's also open to those who want to defend Trump.

It's the Debate Zone.
You stated your position and did not provide any leads for differing positions.
So the differing positions are taken as unfulfilled in consideration of the Debate Zone.

I would greatly appreciate a discussion about reasons to consider and possibly further dismiss a candidate, but without a definite comprehension of politics as a contrast between the entire electorate and the whole of electors that discussion isn't made possible in terms of productive results.

I said people could comment on the material of the OP. What I meant was people could say if they agreed or disagreed with the gist of the article in the OP. It could have been done better. Perhaps I should make a new thread where we could debate what people consider the pros and cons of Trump.

I think the idea of a new thread is a good one.

The article apparently doesn't have an argument and is purely descriptive, therefore lacking what is required for agreement or disagreement.