when you reached for an example, you really didn't have much to report.
Seriously, you
can't be this clueless, David. You just can't. I mean...
can you? Is this
really the same David Bailey who has offered such thoughtful critiques on everything from natural selection to artificial intelligence? I may not always have agreed with every aspect of every critique, but I have always perceived a strong grasp and acknowledgement of the facts in contention - of reality.
But here: a blanket denial of the facts. There's simply nothing in your eyes of which Donald might be accused - of which Donald
has been accused - that warrants censure.
"Grab 'em by the pussy" - oh, you know, that's
just "a coarse remark". Presumably, then, he didn't actually do what he said he did in that remark, in which case he was lying for notoriety amongst the lads, which presumably is plenty enough likeable to you. Never mind that
at least sixteen women to date have confirmed that he
does do the sort of things about which he was recorded boasting - and no doubt those are just the few who have been brave enough to come forward publicly and cop the inevitable push-back.
And the important aspect of the Stormy Daniels allegations? Oh, boy, that how unethical
she is, to have blackmailed Donald! Never mind that the point in contention is
Donald's bad behaviour, not anybody else's. Never mind that the fact that there's something about which Donald
could be blackmailed (assuming "blackmail" is even the right word) in the first place
confirms bad behaviour on his part.
According to you, I "really didn't have much to report". The irony is that you're behaving exactly analogously to pseudo-skeptics of psi: "
There's no evidence for psi or anything paranormal. See how easily I debunked the couple of weak examples of supposed evidence that you were able to offer? [Whilst utterly ignoring the cache of evidence which somebody - in the case of psi, perhaps Dean Radin; in the case of Donald, malf - has helpfully compiled/provided]". That's what's so strange to me. You can spot it a mile off when they do it, but you're blind to it in yourself.
David, there's a cavern of reportables. I literally spent just a few seconds picking the examples I picked. Here is another sample:
1. Donald was recently
ordered to pay $25 million to his former "students" of Trump "University":
“Trump University” ostensibly existed to educate students about the ins and outs of the real-estate business; in reality it involved “instructors” who
may not have had high school degrees selling
intellectually flimsy seminars that cost tens of thousands of dollars using
infomercial-style high-pressure sales tactics. The for-profit institution was ultimately forced to change its name (becoming the Trump Entrepreneur Initiative) by New York officials who
wrote that its “use of the word ‘university’ ” was “misleading” and violated state law. When disgruntled students’ lawsuits became an issue during the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump disparaged the judge handling the cases—a highly regarded former prosecutor who has Mexican ancestry but was born in Indiana—as
a “Mexican” who was biased against him because of … Mexico
Ripping people off with a high-fee, low-grade pretense at "university" education by your "instructors" who often enough were even less educated than your "students", and then bringing up the race of the judge in the case to allege bias against your unscrupulous greed - what's
not to like about that?
2. Donald has
a long history of self-serving offensiveness towards native Americans:
In 2000, when New York was considering expanding Native American casinos in the Catskill Mountains, a series of TV, newspaper and radio ads popped up in the state accusing the Mohawk Indian tribe of having long criminal records and ties to the mob. The ads showed pictures of cocaine lines and syringes and asked: “Are these the new neighbors we want?”
As far as the public knew, the ads were sponsored by a newly formed group called the Institute for Law and Safety. The group claimed that it was funded by 12,000 “grass-roots, pro-family” donors.
But in reality, it was bankrolled by Trump’s casino company. Stone asked a friend to pose as the group’s leader, but Stone designed the ads and Trump signed off on them. “Roger, this could be good!” Trump scrawled on a proof of the ad with the cocaine lines and syringes, according to documents first reported last month by the Los Angeles Times. Another ad warned of the ills that casino gambling would bring to the community: “increased crime, broken families, bankruptcies, and in the case of the Mohawks, violence.” Trump paid more than $1 million for the campaign.
Trump and Stone never reported the ad spending as a lobbying effort, as state law required, and acknowledged their role only after regulators launched an investigation. In a deposition, Stone told regulators that the only reason the organization was set up was to hide Trump’s involvement because a “pro-family” group would have more credibility with the public. The state lobbying commission imposed its largest-ever civil penalty — a $250,000 fine — and Trump and his associates agreed to issue a public apology.
Even as he was warning of the dangers of Indian gambling in Upstate New York, Trump pushed for an Indian casino in nearby Connecticut, according to court records. Trump had a stake in the project, having struck a partnership with the Paucatuck Indians — a tribe that had not been recognized by the federal government.
Portraying native Americans as criminal drug abusers under the cover of a fake "pro-family" institute so as to further your commercial aims, and then, when it suits your commercial aims, allying yourself with native Americans: what's not to like about that? As Donald himself put it: this could be good!
David, this stuff goes on and on. I can smell the coffee alright. The stench is unbearable.