This assumes some kind of universal agreement that whatever losers in they PJ’s write for free on ‘wiki’ defines the world.
OP has clarified anyway that their point was not about whether it was ‘really a sex tape’ but that it was inappropriate or unethical for a presidential candidate to refer to a sex tape as part of trying to discredit an opponent or surrogate (and Machado is that, not a ‘civilian’ after agreeing to get involved on Clinton’s side).
I don’t see why in principal. However in the specifics and practically speaking some voters might find it a problem that the tape doesn’t fit their definition of ‘sex tape’.
Others, somewhat contradicting that, might have a problem with ‘porn shaming’. Somebody has sex on video and publicizes it deliberately (let’s say, hypothetically). Why does that discredit them in any way? Those of a certain post-modern POV might ask.
Others might find hypocrisy that Trump himself appeared in a non-sexual scene of a Playboy softcore ‘pornographic’ video. And that Melania Trump posed for photo’s of similar ‘porn level’ to those of Machado in Playboy, though didn’t do a ‘sex tape’ or ‘not really sex tape’ AFAIK.
I think mainly Trump is moronic, practically politically, to bog himself down in stuff like this, rather than it being something so out of line with where the culture has gotten to generally, or categorically unethical.
George Washington: “Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire, called conscience.”
Abraham Lincoln: “With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us to strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”
Franklin Roosevelt: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
John F. Kennedy: “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.”
Ronald Reagan: “It’s morning in America.”
Donald Trump: “Hey America! Check out this sex tape!”
I have general interest in puncturing poor argument anywhere I see it. That’s easy. But I have little interest in helping develop an argument that rests on such a comparatively ridiculously small issue. It’s like arguing that we should criticize John Wilkes Booth for his poor dental hygiene as well as his assassin tendencies, or Idi Amin for his insensitivity to the plight of female executive compensation in US Fortune 50 companies.
Trump is a major party candidate for president with no prior public elected office experience, no temperamental suitability for the job, and poll numbers that suggest a quantifiable chance of nonetheless winning.
Why in heavens name would I care to construct a helpful argument about his crass mention of a sex tape?
It’s easy and it’s at best petty. It does nothing other than give the person who does it some transient and artificial sense of superiority. It is of lower value than someone who wanders into a thread merely to correct what they think (either correctly or incorrectly) is a spelling or grammatical error because at least those folks offer up what they think would be the more correct version.
If you think the argument is petty that is fine and you are free to make that comment. Maybe that thought is of value; it at least belongs in a meaningful discussion. Shitting on a discussion with unrequested rhetorical criticisms out of your “general interest” is OTOH rarely of any value.
As why discussing what Trump is doing is worthwhile - it confirms and illustrates further what sort of temperament and judgment he possesses, what sort of ethical mindset he has, in ways that some undecided voters and less than strongly supporting voters can comprehend. You believe that he has “no temperamental suitability for the job” and that is well and good, but as in television and the movies, if you want to make a bigger impact about a character’s nature you don’t say it, you show it. Highlighting this behavior and pointing out what it is, does that for some who do not yet see it.
If you really dislike poor argument and want to reduce its appearance, you can encourage better argument. What you’re doing does nothing to encourage better argument, it just irritates people. You could encourage better argument by showing what it looks like.
If the content of the argument matters, then you shouldn’t care about poor argument about trivialities. If the content of the argument doesn’t matter, then you should offer tips on constructing a good argument about trivialities.
Or you could post unhelpful, irritating sideline criticisms that do nobody any good while refusing to show what you think good practice looks like. That’s an option too.
Spelling and grammar are tangential to the value of the argument.
A lack of cogency, on the other hand, IS the argument, or the lack thereof. It is neither petty nor aggrandizing to point out that an argument sucks. As with any proposition, the burden of persuasion rests on the side offering the initial proposition. Highlighting efforts that ignore this truth is inherently valuable, in my view.
Here you may have a point. But my central argument would be, in effect, “We ought not to devote time and effort to the sex tape business; an attack that points out a sex tape is not so crazy in this political climate.” Instead, I might go on, re-direct your attention to the manu threads which do a fine job at SHOWING as well as telling the many serious flaws that Trump presents as a potential president.
I’ve been Trump-curious for a long while, mostly because Hillary’s muscular foreign policy terrifies me. I had not been seriously considering voting for him, ever since he adopted standard Republican positions on economics, but I hadn’t entirely ruled it out either. But this is definitely the ‘enough’ point for me. I could forgive him, even, the Khizr Khan scandal, to some degree: I can’t forgive him this.
I’m voting for Darrell Castle and the Constitution Party.
A serious candidate would have shown some repentance and remorse, and asked Ms. Machado to forgive him. Then again, Donald Trump is famously the guy who’s never confessed his sins, because he doesn’t think he’s committed any.
I really, REALLY do not understand how any evangelical or even vaguely Christian religious person could fathom voting for Trump. His actions and words go against the very basic tenets of Christianity.
The guy who wants to withdraw from the United Nations, NATO, TPP, NAFTA, CAFTA, Gatt, and WTO, close down the federal reserve and environmental regulations, and ban Muslims from this country?
This did not “allow” Trump to run. Anyone can run. He just happens to be famous, and we live in a celebrity culture. That’s what allowed him successfully to run.
No, it’s not a form of bigotry.
If such a tape existed with Trump in it instead of this woman, it would be out there as much as this is.
Honestly I fail to see any cogency to this response.
To my read you do not believe the argument itself sucks but are merely relished in grading its presentation as “sloppy.”
Highlighting that which you personally judge as “sloppy” solely because you see value in passing such public judgments brings no value to the discussion at hand. It is threadshitting.
And “manu” is not a word. Sloppy, man.
Meanwhile, no, I for one do not think that telling the American public to Google a sex tape (perhaps believing that the explicit ones that are not her but are labelled as her will be seen and believed) of someone who has criticized your past behavior as a means of distracting from the criticism is “not so crazy” even in this political environment. It is, IMHO, crazy and beyond the pale even in today’s environment, one in which the complete fence, pales and stringers both, has already been moved by Trump’s outrageousness.
Yeah, only Trump is allowed to say things like that. During Republican debates.
Being that this is a reality show, and that they knew there were cameras, I’m betting it was staged - either by the producers of them to get screen time.
An early episode of The Big Bang Theory included loud sex with just as much nudity (none) on broadcast TV.
Let me try 2 and 3. A sex tape from a real opponent - one you were actually opposing, or running against - might be fair game. But someone who attacks you after being attacked, and especially someone brought up by your actual opponent?
If it is not wrong to do this, then it must be fine to collect sex tapes for any person ever saying anything nasty about you, famous or not.
I think Kim Kardashian said she was voting for Trump, or at least thinking about it. Should the Dems plaster her sex tape all over the web for anyone who like me has managed to avoid it to find? In other words, is it wrong to drag this campaign even further into the mud for no good reason? If Clinton had announced plans to appoint Machado ambassador to Mexico than I might see it.
Wrong in the sense of being stupid. It is wrong to have no sense of priority. Carter was criticized for worrying about tennis court scheduling more than being president. If that was wrong (stupid, not immoral) certainly spending your time attacking actresses is wrong too.
BTW, do you consider Nixon’s enemies list wrong? At least Nixon had the sense to keep it quiet.
