In the 2005 recording, Mr. Trump said: “You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful women—I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.…
“And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.…Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything,” Mr. Trump added.
Mr. Trump also referred to a married woman whom he said he tried to seduce: “I moved on her and I failed. I’ll admit it. I did try and f—her.…”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trum … 1475886118
Video here: https://youtu.be/24ofBPMC1h8
My neighbor's Trump/Pence ground sign is gone this morning.
Men do engage in a lot of locker room chatter like this. But you certainly keep it under wraps, why was he dumb enough to have it recorded?
He just keeps digging himself into deeper holes. The lame fall back about what Bill Clinton said at a golf match is just an excuse. Bill Clinton is not running for President, he is. All of this plays right into Ms. Clinton's hands. Trump must be planning to lose, he continues to PO all the establishment to the point that they wish that Pence would take over for the topof the ticket.
The "boys will be boys" defense?
Ground sign is back up next door. Rationalization complete. It took less than a day!
I do not agree with Trump or even like him. I think he is his own worst enemy because he does not know how to keep his mouth shut. I do feel he has not been in politics so he is not corrupt yet like Clinton. He does not have to make the special interests happy so maybe he would do a good job. Who knows. Clinton is corrupt and has to keep the people who have financed her campaign happy so she will not help the country or the people. Take a look at who and what she has supported in the past. At this point Trump is on his own.
I understand your frustration with Trump. I just believe that corrupt people can exist well outside the realm of politics. Trump is one and whatever relief people believe that he would provide, I don't think exists. His wealth and affluence is a special interest in itself. So, who is he going to make happy?
It is tough, but between two corrupt choices, I am going to select the one that does not bring so many additional negatives as does Donald Trump right now.
Let's put this in perspective.
Bill Clinton was found guilty of having sex with an intern in the White House and accused by multiple women of raping them. Trump never raped anyone or assaulted anyone.
Hillary Clinton defended a man she knew raped a 12 year old, smeared the child as desperate for it, laughed about it and never apologized. This is compared to Trump's discussions that are tame compared to many rap videos.
The Clinton's actions over the years are far worse than a decade old recorded conversation.
Maybe you should read through the entire thread. This has been covered.
In a nutshell, Donald has been accused of rape and of participating in orgies with underage girls. These are unproven allegations. It is a fact that Donald cheated on all three of his wives. He has admitted it.
It is a fact that Bill had multiple extramarital affairs. He has admitted it. The rape allegations remain unproven, same as the allegations against Donald.
Donald is running for president. Bill is not. These are facts.
While I detest the woman, to denigrate her for the defense of a criminal is outrageous. She was appointed by the court to perform an utterly necessary task of our justice system: the defense of a man, guilty or not, that was charged with a crime and to do so to the best of her ability. To suggest that she should have refused, or to do less than her best, implies that we will no longer provide counsel for those that cannot afford it themselves. We all recognize that money buys "not guilty" verdicts in too many cases and failing to provide the best defense possible would only exacerbate that very real problem.
So Hillary Clinton is a disgusting example of what our politics has become but she did the right thing in giving her best to defend a criminal in court.
Is this seriously worse than Hillary joking and laughing about getting a child rapist free from serious punishment?
A 41-year-old factory worker named Thomas Alfred Taylor rapes a 12 year old girl in 1975. At the time, Clinton worked as a defense lawyer for Taylor, who pleaded “unlawful fondling of a minor” and “served less than a year in prison after Clinton was able to block the admission of forensic evidence that linked her client to the crime,” The Daily Mail reported.
Recorded in the 1980s, an interview with Arkansas journalist Roy Reed has Clinton saying, “Do you remember that case where I represented that guy? It was a fascinating case. […] The guy was accused of raping a 12-year-old girl. Of course he claimed that he didn’t. All this stuff. He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.” She then chuckles.
To think Hillary Clinton is any LESS flawed a human being, or has any LESS dirt under her fingernails is delusional at best. Anyone who thinks she is a good person, in comparison to Trump, is only lying to themselves.
More distortions and lies. I refer you to a previous post on the subject.
* http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … uilty.html
'Hillary Clinton is not for women and children,' says Kathy Shelton, 54, who was 12 years old when she was raped by Thomas Alfred Taylor in Arkansas
Clinton was the rapist's defense lawyer, pleading him down to 'unlawful fondling of a minor'
The 41-year-old drifter served less than a year in prison
The plea came after Clinton was able to block the admission of forensic evidence that linked her client to the crime
Shelton says she's furious that Clinton has been portraying herself as a lifelong advocate of women and girls on the campaign trail
Clinton accused Shelton of 'seeking out older men' in the case and demanded that she undergo a grueling court-ordered psychiatric examination
The presidential candidate later laughed while discussing aspects of the case in a recently-unearthed audiotaped interview from the 1980s
Did you read the Snopes article?
My brother, who is a public defender, recently defended an accused serial pedophile who was found not guilty. My brother is a devout Christian who also believes in the rule of law and the constitutional right to a fair trial, which includes a good and rigorous defense. He did his constitutional duty even though he was pretty sure the guy was guilty.
Do you believe in the constitutional right of every American to have a fair trial with a proper defense?
I could never defend a SERIAL Pedophile, for any reason, under any circumstances... that is MY belief value, I care less what someone believes is their 'right'... someone HAS to defend the children who cannot defend themselves.
A fair trial with a proper Defense does NOT mean you twist the law to protect a predator that preys on children. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION.
Ask your brother if he feels any responsibility for the future victims of that animal after helping him find a loophole in the law... I would be curious what his answer is.
Well, aren't you just holier than thou. He was an accused serial pedophile. Innocent until proven guilty. He was found innocent by a jury of his peers.
So many conservatives pretend to revere the Constitution, but are willing to ditch it when the going gets rough.
Was he a SERIAL Pedophile or not?
He was accused... but was he guilty of it in prior crimes?
The way you write it, he was a serial rapist/pedophile who was again being brought up on charges. And if he were a repeat offender then I stand by everything I stated... I could care less if you or anyone else puts the word of the law above doing what is right, and what protects innocent people, especially children.
As YOU said he was pretty sure the guy was guilty... then that is on him, every victim there-after is on him, he helped put him back on the streets. You don't help scum get back on the streets to do more harm, unless you have no true values, no sense of right or wrong.
So I'm right. You're a pretend conservative who doesn't value the constitution. Sometimes innocent people need a good defense. Who are you to decide who is worthy and who is not? That is why we are all entitled to a fair trial by jury. Thank goodness we have rational, principled people willing to stand up for our constitutional rights, even when it's not pretty.
I said accused serial pedophile.
If I were ignorant of how the law in our land works, if I were ignorant of how our judicial system works, your posts might be bothersome.
But your posts come across as hollow, and it seems you can't differentiate between constitutional rights, and how laws are applied and how defendants/criminals can often avoid the 'justice' they deserve by the simplest of errors of procedure, due process or any number of things, including a lawyer knowing certain loopholes or legal arguments that can aid in a criminals release, aid in evidence being withheld, aid in the real facts of the case never being heard by the Jury.
Any lawyer that knowingly uses the minutia of the law, to help violent and predatory criminals get back on the streets to harm more innocents, is in my book, as low a life form that exists in our world today.
There are a lot of people that prefer to dispense with the irritating fine points of legal procedure to get people who they think 'deserve' it. And, who are you to make so bold an assertion? That was the basis of the need for the Miranda warnings as part of police procedure, the end of stop and frisk as a way to treat entire communities as criminals, en masse. But that will never disturb the mindset of the conservative diehard type...I will take those procedural red tape moments that so irritate you anytime in favor of protecting the innocent even when a guilty one would escape. The Constitution says innocent until proven guilty, but for the rightwinger that has to be most annoying.
These opinions are almost too shallow to believe , it falls right into the liberal pattern of negative labeling , we all know that liberals label these days more than super markets , to think of the controls of law like the Miranda or Due Process as "right or left "? Seriously .......that would be like me saying liberals want anarchy in America simply for the freedoms it promises in the social structure ,............Oh yea , they do !
As I don't understand what any of that babble really means, excuse me for ignoring it all together.
In a nutshell,the founding fathers wanted everyone to receive fair and equal treatment under the law.
That you want to bypass the Constitution to dispense justice based upon your own personal judgement is telling. Credence is suggesting it is a propensity of the right wing. I'm not saying that but sometimes I do wonder.
The problem with your statement = Bypassing the constitution has been the agenda ,purpose and practice of the democratic party leaders since Obama took over the office .
But hey , democrats know and are very pleased with the destruction of one , the constitution itself , two the controlling bias of their media , and three the brainwashing of voters like you .
So please ....don't play constitutionalist now !
Please point to where I have advocated bypassing the constitution.
You belong and constantly point to the party that does , see ? That's the difference right to left in America . The right can recognize those who want to change ,change , change .....until you return from where you began . Your left believes the constitution to be alive and constantly changeable .
So, Mr. Burgess wants to ignore the constitution in favor of his personal belief of who is innocent or guilty and you point to me as the one who wants to ignore the Constitution, even though you cannot show a single instance where I have advocated such. And you justify your unfounded position by stereotyping Democrats without any supporting evidence.
For conservatives, the term 'strict constructionist' in regards to interpretation of the Constitution simply means interpreting the law in their favor.
Yes , I hear you ,You mean like extreme complexity of the 27 word second amendment ...........Right ?
Isn't that what everyone wants? Interpreting law in their favor? Why make a statement which appears to be derogatory toward one specific group who hopes for the same thing as any group?
That is true, that is what everbody wants. But, that term describes for them the correct way the Constitution should be interpreted by the court. Consequently, liberals jurors are criticized for 'legislating from the bench'. 'Strict Constructionism' regarding a manner of interpretation of the Constitution by SCOTUS is a code word for conservatives, that not only want it their way but want to demonstrate that it is the only correct way for the court to interpret the law.
OK. So what do we call those on the far left who either want to bypass the parts of the constitution they don't like, or rewrite them entirely?
"Dog Whistles" and "code words," Geesh! I don't remember, but I hope you weren't one of those "efforting" people of recent past.
If the negative implication of your "code word" description, was removed, I think your comment makes perfect sense. What else can you expect from an ideology? Of course that term, "strict constructionist" implies the Conservative Right. What is wrong with that?
Look at your comment again - with a one substitution...
"'Living Constitutionism,' regarding a manner of interpretation of the Constitution by SCOTUS is a word for Liberals, that not only want it their way but want to demonstrate that it is the only correct way for the court to interpret the law."
I don't see anything negative or wrong about it that way either. Do you?
So do you think your intentional use of a negative descriptor carried your point? I would bet that those you targeted first, would view your amended comment as negatively and wrong as you did the original? Are they as right as you are?
Sorry, my bias is showing anything that the conservatives herald as great is something of which I should be deeply suspicious.
What wrong with the conservative right? Now there is a cause for a Red Alert, if I ever saw one.
There is no such term as "living constitionalism'. I have heard the right complaining about what they believe is judicial activism. But, if I listened to them we would not have had the landmark decisions prohibiting segregated education or that legalizing abortion. I doubt that such necessary rulings would have been possible under a strict contructionist approach.
So, GA, what is a prime example of conservatism? it is the idea that that having another woman on Clinton's ticket as her running mate would be too much? Both you and Promisem mentioned that concern and I have been wondering since then.. Promisem told me that I was less resistant to the prospect because I was more open minded. I appreciated the compliment, but are conservatives more rigid and closed minded in comparison?Now there is the difference between red and blue, stark and easy to see. People aren't ready for a ticket with women running for Prez and VP. Who says they are not ready? We have had tickets with two men running for a couple of centuries. Much of the industrialized world has had female heads of state. It is that attitude that reveals so much about the conservative mindset. And why that it is a thing to be avoided. So women are almost to be seen as equals, but not quite? We can't trust them with both the top spots. How much of that thinking lies behind conservative thought regarding others that are not part of their mainstream? Hmmmm....
Don't mean to meander, just had to see what you would say.
No, no, I wasn't asking what you thought was wrong with the Conservative Right, no way I would open that can of worms. I was asking what was wrong with them believing in "strict Constructionist" interpretations of the Constitution? Just as I asked you what was wrong with your same comment respective to "Living Constitution*," (or Living Document perspective), being a similar "code word" for Liberals.
*yes, I did subvert "Living Constitution," (by adding the "ism"), which is the theory of Constitutional interpretation that birthed the term "judicial activism," and it's layman cousin - "legislating from the bench." All three terms commonly attributed to Liberals.
As for the possible alternate fates of the decisions you mentioned, we may never know. On Roe v Wade, I think that decision might have been different, but, I don't think a strict constructionist interpretation would have changed the Brown v Bd. of Ed. decision.
Your memory of Promisem's comment about a female double-header ticket was correct, but incomplete. I also noted I thought our country was ready for it. I still think that if Clinton could have landed Warren Trump would still be a wisp of smoke instead of the wildfire he is.
"It is that attitude that reveals so much about the conservative mindset."
Yes, it does, but that makes it even more important to understand that mindset before you condemn or dismiss it. I think my earlier abortion question example demonstrates this.
You know something, as for "understanding", I did not think you would.
So, you are in favor of American citizens (lawyers) passing judgment about the guilt or innocence of a client, then intentionally providing a defective defense to achieve "justice" based on their own personal judgment? This is precisely what the Constitution and American judicial law is designed to prevent. It would result in disbarrment if discovered.
This talking point about Hillary Clinton laughing over the rape trial is a debunked talking point invented by the right-wing and is something imbeciles use to make up conspiracy theories. Once again, that the laughter had anything to do with getting a rapist free has been debunked, completely. If you continue to use that as the foundation for your stupid woman-hating theories, then you are completely stupid.
Well stated articulate reply, very convincing.
Clinton was assigned to be the defendant's lawyer. She had an obligation to defend him and do the best she possibly could. The prosecution lost the case by mishandling evidence. A defendant, any defendant, no matter the crime, has a right to a defense. To argue otherwise is fundamentally un-American. To attack the defense lawyer for doing his or her job, is fundamentally un-American. To threaten to jail a political opponent is un-American. To establish a religious test for entry into the United States is un-American. When you support ideas that undermine the very core values of this country, then you are un-American.
Wow such hypocrisy to be sooo offended by Trumpspeak and yet ........its all just okay for Hilary Clinton, that is all the eye opener that any conservative needs to see the pure naïve hypocrisy of the left ,----------" Put the coal miners out of business ", " Those women are just trash " , " I have never intentionally lied to the American people " " I misremembered what I was saying about my e -mails .......blah blah blah .
But to actually laugh in a recorded interview about the rape of a twelve year old girl .......I think I understand Hilary and her supporters quite accurately, thanks , I don't think I need your explanation .
You don't fundamentally understand McCarthyism, do you? I'm talking about supporting basic American values and basic Constitutional values. Among many other things, having a religious test for citizenship would be one of those things. If you support such a thing, America is the wrong country for you.
Making statements like 'If you support such a thing, America is the wrong country for you' makes you unAmerican in my book. But, that's just my book. I'm American enough to know it's a free country.
Of course it's a free country. You can believe the sun goes around the earth, if you like. Many people do. However, if you choose to believe in things that run counter to the Constitution, then you are fundamentally un-American.
Disagree. Those people may be a minority and completely out of sync with the thinking of the majority but they would not be unamerican. Attempting to force your ideals of what the average citizen should believe is completely against the ideals of freedom.
A religious test for citizenship is un-American.
Putting people in jail for exercising their right to free speech is un-American.
The belief that touching people against their will is okay is un-American.
I couldn't agree more, none is better but right now, Donald Trump is the lesser of two evils.
Snopes is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators scouring public records in Washington, no researchers studying historical stacks in libraries, no team of lawyers reaching a consensus on current caselaw. No, Snopes.com is just a mom-and-pop operation that was started by two people who have absolutely no formal background or experience in investigative research.
Take anything these sites say with a grain of salt and an understanding that they are written by people with a motive to criticize all things conservative. Use them only to lead you to solid references where you can read their sources for yourself.
* http://accuracyinpolitics.blogspot.com/ … noped.html
If Snopes is your source, you seriously need to learn how to Google and research for yourself. FactChecker, Politifact, Wikipedia...all have editors who are contemptibly inept. I have to say Wikipedia does have some excellent editors, but content gets rewritten too often. They have editing wars on the site between editors. Do yourself a favor... Find some reliable professional sources that aren't bias would be my advice.
Do the research. Clinton never wanted that case. She felt she had to take it. The tape of her laughing - she was laughing at some of the preposterous circumstances of the case - republicans use the footage against her, easily manipulating minds that want to be manipulated. Trump has an upcoming rape trial in December - a trial that alleges he raped a (then) 13 year old girl. Another woman claims Trump grabbed and fondled her. Do your research...please.
Which state, and which court.
Trump vs Who?
Case File #?
I use to handled lawsuits as an attorney in fact and know how to research, but I need more to go on than hear say.
Anyone can file a civil suit. The fact that this isn't a criminal case speaks volumes that Hillary enthusiasts choose to turn a deaf ear to.
Never mind that Hillary violated the Espionage Act according to what FBI Comey had to say, but she's above the law and still running for president. The government is corrupt as hell.
Bill isn't running for president, he isn't running, Bill isn't running for president, Bill isn't running...Hillary is! My point.
One thing I don't understand is why Republicans are termed as "conservatives" since Bush ran up our deficit from war. Nearly every Republican president has promoted war at the expense of young people's lives and also for the cost of war tanks, guns, air planes, etc. Republicans are narrow minded and don't think with their brain. They just follow whoever their friends or boss follows.
Trump seduces some because they are blinded by his flash of money, his 3rd. wife, his private jet with TRUMP written over it. One Trump tower isn't enough for him -- he wants another one in Russia. If he became president, he would be pouting because he won't get his own way with congress. He can promise you anything but it's up to congress if you're going to get it
Nearly every Republican president? Really? There have been 17 Republican presidents. Only 4 of these were in office when major US wars were initiated. I don't know about you but I wouldn't call less than 25%, "nearly". On the other hand Democrat presidents were in office for the beginning of 6 major US wars, including all, very costly 20th century wars, except one. That's not something I got from one of my friends or my boss. I read it in a history book. Excuse my narrow-mindedness but I believe facts trump (no pun intended) opinion.
The timing of that video's release was impeccable.
Mr. Trump sounds like he has never grown out of childish ways. Why would anyone with even a little bit of good sense ever consider voting for him to be President?
And you find so much more good character in the Clinton machine ? Right . This timing factor doesn't bother you at all ? After almost every conceivable negative about Hilary has hit the wiki-leaks pipeline all year long ?
This is about liberal for liberals , not honesty and good character and you know that
"And you find so much more good character in the Clinton machine ?" Right? No! I did not say or imply that. Your bias, not mine.
What I find disturbing is that within your American system you find it difficult to select a better choice of candidates. Why is that? Head-in-the-Clouds religiosity? Rampant capitalistic commercialism? Hollywood-style promotion of candidates, expecting them to have exemplary C.V.s?
If "honesty and good character" were common traits surely it would (should) be easy to find good role models and elect them to office.
You tell me.
Johnny because for one , The ability to decipher good character and the quality of the person is becoming a lost trait in America , from the age of 18 to thirty and even beyond , leftists have brainwashed the young , the media . Our governing bodies , each of them , congress , senate , the white house are all now keyed into the entitlement phase of government evolution , give to the entity of the masses that scream the most ! What have you heard in the campaign for two years and longer here , Free college , free healthcare , free medicine , free speech , ........are you starting to see the pattern ,............ Free? Individual and independent though is a waning ability in America ,we have passed the point of no return in America , there is too much focus on " me " , on image , on what can I get from government , Remember Kennedy's proclamation ,...."What I can do for my country ..........." have you heard that in the last couple of decades , I heard it then but not lately ?
And you don't suppose the Righties, the self-righteous, heads-in-the-sand fundies, have tried to brainwash the young and the old alike?
I agree that emphasis has been on welfare, and that there have been many cases where individuals abuse the system....out of laziness, greed, complacency, etc.
But that should not preclude anyone from giving care and assistance to those who might be "down on their luck," often through no avoidable fault of their own.
Because the converse, where the idea of hard work, smartness, good education, often a big bank account falling into one's lap, etc., contribute to a person's good life: these situations are seen as the correct way to have a life. These characteristics actually lead to poverty.
So you might wish to examine your own life to see if any of my thoughts here fit in with your ideas.
Very interesting. If your neighbor didn't know he was a bit of a pig where women were concerned before that; they must have simply wanted to ignore it until they had no other excuse.
I guess everyone has their limits. I don't think a means they support Hillary, though, just that they are embarrassed to publicly support Trump.
I get that. Unfortunately, we have two choices. Bad choices to be sure but you have to chose one to support.
I think Trumps comments about women are terrible but this does not mean he will make a bad president. Look at some of our other presidents and they did a good job. Hillary has done thing that have put the country in danger and people have been killed because of her. She is supported by special interests and she will have to do what they want. Trump is not. He is really the lesser of the to evils.
Why does he wear makeup? Can't even get the tone right. Compare the color of his hands to his face. Vanity? If it was from a tanning booth, he would be the same color all over. I used to sell makeup and I believe he wears it because he is vain and thinks he is great looking. I think he is an ugly looking human (? maybe a human) but evidently, he thinks he's beautiful. UGH!!!!
I think he was married to Melania at that time....
I don't really know anything about Trump's wives. I know he has been married several times. I'm not certain what which wife would have to do with these comments.
Honestly, I suppose I should look into it as to context and company. Guys talk a lot of trash with guys.
Heck. Look at all the sludgeHillary supporters overlook, rationalize, pretend doesn't exist and damn those who dare comment on it. Should they begrudge the same behavior from a trump supporter?
I think not.
I don't begrudge it at all. To each his own. Just pointing it out. Gotta balance out the 15 political threads started by the dynamic duo somehow. By the way, I didn't actually count, just pulled a number out of my arse. Trumpeters don't mind that sort of thing.
Trump is in love with himself. He can't even commit to one marriage, 2 and now he's on the 3rd. Once he gets bored, or no one adores him (which I don't) he will probably quit if elected and blame it on someone else. I doubt if he ever worked hard like the rest of us. Can't stand him
We are living in an era of politically corrected behavior and such offended attitudes by everyone ! What's the big deal , is someone going to tell me that men AND women don't engage in locker room behavior and talk and banter ? Please who here is holier than thou ?
We are also in an era where , NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE AS A CELEBRITY , you're right next to an open phone line , camera , video cam , someone specifically looking to nail you for something juicy !
I really get a kick out of women who are so offended by this Trump talk , yet the utter hypocrisy of the Clinton whoring machine is JUST ALL OKAY ? Please , grow up !
Who here is holier than thou? No one. Who here is running for president? No one.
It is funny that democrats screamed that Bill's indiscretions weren't relevant and bringing them up was a witch hunt by a vast right wing conspiracy.
Can I assume this complaining about Trump's is a vast left wing conspiracy?
It would be fair and balanced. No?
That vast right wing conspiracy quote is from the 90s. You will never hear me say anything like that. Who has?
Are you suggesting that an actual video of Trump bragging about pussy grabbing is the same as unproven accusations of the Clintons murdering 90+ people?
You've never heard me suggest the Clintons have murdered ninety plus people. But, it does make sense for you to comment on the ludicrous while carefully avoiding the real problems that are documented.
If Bill's indiscretions were evident during the time he campaigned for the office, he might well have expected the same angst or even more, now that his candidacy is almost 25 years into the past.
I am not saying that Bill walked on water, but to have this come out on Trump at this time, allowing this sort of information to complicate his candidacy is not smart.
There is one thing everyone is forgetting and that is the media is for Hillary. She can do anything and it is played down or okay. Trump does something and it is the end of the world. I think his comments about women are horrible but they are news. This is an election for President not for Sainthood.
I find it so interesting that you can instantly judge a recording of the locker room bantering of Trump , but your apparently to politically shallow or something to judge Hilary's ACTUAL history and her PROVEN war against women ?
Please specifically answer for that !
Proven war against women? I know of not a single policy advocated or voted for by Hillary Clinton that would constitute a war on women. Republicans on the other hand? No doubt.
Maybe not. She did have a lot to do with 4 people getting killed in Benghazi. We will never get an true answer of her guilt in our life time.
She has been cleared by multiple investigations. What does that have to do with an alleged war on women?
So sorry Pretty Panther. Please accept my apology. I put my comment in the wrong place. I am not an expert like your are. Thank you.
norlawrence: If you don't know the truth on Benghazi after a dozen investigations and congressional hearings, you don't want to know.
These men who make responses like it's o.k. for Trump to victimize us women just want it like in the cave man days. Well, buddy, it's been about 65,000,000 since the dinosaur age
Is Bill running for president? No, but Little Donnie is.
Just the lady who attempted to cover it up.
Some of those are accurate depictions of Hillary's positions. Some are not You forgot "I support knowledge and ability over an ignorant overgrown toddker.. That would be accurate.
Actually you support incompetence and corruption over a guy who says mean things.
Lol, more inaccurate pretty pictures from those who apparently are unable to write their own thoughts.
If someone says mean things, then what about the mean things they don't talk about? Wouldn't surprise me if Trump has hookers in his casinos and ties them up
I really do not see what Trumps actions have to do with anything in an election for President. I do not agree with them and I think they are terrible. If Trump was an average person they would never have been recorded.
I personally don't care about Donnie's affairs. That is between him and Melania. However, there is a highly vocal faction on the political forums who want to hold Hillary accountable for Bill's sexual allegations. And Bill is not running for president.
The left complaining:
“I am sickened by what I heard” - Paul Ryan
"These comments are repugnant and unacceptable in any circumstance" - Mitch McConnell
“I will not and cannot support a candidate for president who brags about degrading and assaulting women" - Kelly Ayotte
"Donald Trump's behavior this week, concluding with the disclosure of his demeaning comments about women and his boasts about sexual assaults, make it impossible to continue to offer even conditional support for his candidacy." - John McCain
“As a husband and a father, I was offended by the words and actions described by Donald Trump" - Mike Pence
"Donald Trump should withdraw and Mike Pence should be our nominee effective immediately." - John Thune
"Character matters.Trump is obviously not going to win. But he can still make an honorable move:
Step aside & let Mike Pence try."- Ben Sasse
"This is not just a matter of what has happened within the last 24 hours. This is a matter of what's happened over the course of frankly the last two years. There was always -- somehow maybe the guy will change -- there's been no change. It's gotten worse" - John Kasich
Gee, I thought that all these folks were of the conservative GOP type, funny?
But in all seriousness,
Watching tv, I was sorry for some of his surrogates. They tried, but they were so ashamed, almost speechless. LOL It was sad.
Well there you are then... conservatives that don't agree with Trump. Do you wonder about your other thoughts too?
The problem is that Trump is doing far too well among the conservatives that do support him.
Now grasshopper, you must focus... your answer is not in the who... it is in the why.
You might recall a conversation we had early in Trump's campaign, before the primaries. Even then the question should have been why he had supporters, rather than who those supporters were. But when he did not crash and burn in the primaries - the attention was still on the who. Tsk. Tsk.
Everyone is so focused on the messenger that they are ignoring the message.
ps. I have another great read recommendation that I think you would really enjoy, "FDR A Biography" by Ted Morgan. I am less than half through and just entering his first presidential win in 32'. You gotta read this one Credence2. Morgan is no hack, it is an excellently sourced book.
Here's a non-affiliated link for FDR - A Biography Used hardcover. You can get it for $4 - $10 total.
GA, I say that the who among the Trump supporters is closely correlated with the why.
I disagree with your assessment that Trump is merely an expression of frustration with politics and the political process as it is today. I think Trump is just a 21st century version of George Wallace, he too, gave voice to the more base of our electorate. No candidate in modern times has been so unqualified and coarse. He has nothing else to promote him.
Thanks for the book recommendation, I will check it out.
Political science professor Lichtman: "The Keys to the White House" is a historically based prediction system. I derived the system by looking at every American presidential election from 1860 to 1980, and have since used the system to correctly predict the outcomes of all eight American presidential elections from 1984 to 2012. He predicts Trump will win in 2016.
* https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the … correctly/
But, Trump could break his mojo and lose. It really is uncertain. The professor thinks Trump is a generic Republican like none other before, whatever that means. Read his model if you are interested.
LOL The funny thing is that I, and I think others, view Hillary not as another Wallace but as a 21st century J Edgar Hoover. From the WIKI file on Hoover:
"secretive abuses of power". "exceeded the jurisdiction of the FBI", "used the FBI to harass political dissenters", "amass secret files on political leaders", "collect evidence using illegal methods", "amassed a great deal of power and was in a position to intimidate and threaten", "Hoover transformed the FBI into his private secret police force",
"However, Richard Nixon was recorded as stating in 1971 that one of the reasons he did not fire Hoover was that he was afraid of reprisals against him from Hoover."
All of this sounds way too close to what I see in Hillary Clinton.
I had to comment, Hoover pretty much had so many President's shaking in their boots. He intimidated the Kennedys, even as Robert was his boss as Attorney General. Hoover still was using Bull Connor and George Wallace's approach to civil rights issues. Nixon saw Hoover as an anachronism from a by gone era, and certainly was somewhat relieved at his death toward the end of his first term.
But I loved the guy during the G-man days of the thirties in the Bureau's pursuit of the roving gangsters during the period.
I doubt that anybody could wield that kind of influence, again.
I can understand why, from a Progressive perspective, you would see them that way. We all filter through the lens of our own perspective. I think the "why" is more important, and less tied to Trump than the "who."
I hope Hillary won't mind if I borrow her "baskets of deplorables." (but not the "half" part)
I think there is some truth to her words. (I also understand Hillary has her own basket of deplorables - that is not the point). I think Trump has a solid core base that does fit the worst descriptions put out by the Democrats, but, I have never believed that base was large enough to propel Trump forward.
I even think I could step into your progressive view and see the Trump you are seeing. And if I did, then the size of Trump's core base is very important. How did we ever get here?
What happened? Did a ton of those other uneducated white rednecks come down out of the mountains? Did the base that believes as Trump does explode with conversions due to his public presence? I don't think so.
I think the angry voter justification, that you discounted, is a primary motivator, along with the any-body-but-Hillary and nose-holder voters. I think that is the expanding non-base that is behind him now.
That are several "whos" now. But there is still only one why. Why would those formerly rational angry voters do something as apparently irrational as get behind Trump?
I would not like to think that Clinton's descriptions of Trump supporters were all inclusive. As for that base not being large enough to propel Trump forward, maybe it is. There were plenty of GOP competition for the nomination among those that were more mainstream, ideologically relevant, more knowledgeable, etc. So, why Trump, was political incorrectness so important relative to all these other factors? What kind of people seek to discard all the rules of decorum and would be attracted to him?
We may very well be seeing the creation of a third party candidate in Trump, de facto, as he may well divert from doctrinaire GOP policy positions sufficiently enough to differentiate him and his supporters from the GOP establishment. I have to question the timing of the 'fed up' status of Trump supporters. They have had reason to be 'fed up' long before now.
Those of the corporate class, as Trump is, are just as corrupt as any politician and will simply desire to skew the system to the advantage of himself and others like him from the inside. Is he a working man's champion, poppycock!
I try to step into the conservatives view and looking at the values that they confess, why someone as misrepresenting as Trump? Clinton is still a weak candidate, why support someone on your side with more baggage than she?
You obviously do not need to be adorned in white sheets, or a card carrying member of Aryan Nations, to harbor and be attracted to Trumps xenophobic message and politics of exclusion and harrassment to some degree. This is obviously the case, who in modern times can say the things he does and his support among his followers rise?
You are right cred. I winced when I saw how I described his core base supporter. I did not mean to imply his whole base was in that basket.
Your example of the GOP competitors could be in support of my thoughts about the why. They could have been just as you suggested, if they weren't all politicians. Through the mix of reasons someone might support Trump, from skinheads to moderates, there is one common thread - anger at politicians.
Consider the primary candidates. I saw them all as pretty much the same on issues - in varying degrees, but each with their own signature twist. And, each with some sort of base supporter. Some even tried to out-Trump Trump, in both positions and anti-PC behavior. So there was almost certainly one of them to fit most conservative voters, someone they could move to support. But that did not happen, and I think the reason is the angry voter. And the extreme anti-Hillary sentiment. Both parties have their extreme voters and their anybody-but-the-other guy factions - but only one side has the angry voter wave. (At least I don't recall a ton of Democrat anti-government, anti-establishment sentiment among the news)
I think that if the angry voter did not exist, Trump would not have survived the primaries. But he did, and now those that would not support him if they had another choice, (as you would not support Hillary if you had Bernie for a choice), are bracing themselves to accept a 'the end justifies the means' surrender.
That is Trump's voter. The strength of the anger vote could put Trump in the White House. But nobody is paying attention to the message - voters so angry they are even willing to accept a governmental crash and burn. They are too busy trying to define the who to understand the why.
Why the anger at politicians? I never heard hide nor hair of this stuff before JAN 20, 2009. Not long after that we had the 'tea party' and unprecedented obstruction from the GOP for the new President to contend with.
Was it Obamacare? Every GOP candidate swore to dismantle it on their first day in office.
We on the left did have much of the support toward Bernie Sanders hinging on the some of the same concepts. His differences from Clinton were policy driven, rather than being over some cult of personality.
So why all the Angry voters? Obama has removed more illegal migrants than his predecessor. The economy has taken record rebounds as far as recovery goes.
Is it the lament over the structural change in the economy in the last few years? Is that why they are angry? Regardless of what Trump promises those changes are not controlled by politicians, but capitalism and technological advance.
It just seem to be a strange coincidence that all this stuff started with the Obama adminstration. Were not these problems with politicians floating around before that time? Is the real anger at progressives and how they continue to dominate policy and the issues? It is just anger at the left and allof its supporters and adherents. Trump is not extrapolitical and beyond being bought, has already been bought and sold years ago. He was using the politicians to his benefit for years, just because he isn't one in the conventional sense does not put him above the fray.
Trump is popular as he puts to words all of the thoughts of those that are angry. Much of those thoughts are of the resentful sort. He had simply been doing it more effects ly than were the other candidates, that has to explain, why Trump? But, he is just using their anger to his short term advantage
Now Grasshopper... you are asking the right question... :-)
... and I think there could be a lot of rational answers, but I also think any answer is going to boil down to be something about change; fear of it, control of it, or a stand against it. And any of those three could be legitimate to the one holding the thought.
The specifics, (programs or actions, or people), are only the platforms used to do whatever control thing is your thing. If we look at any of them viewed ideologically, (instead of partisan), and contrast to similar ideological comparisons from your perspective - I bet you will find understandable reasons for what ever view it is that is held. Even if it is buried so deep in layers that it isn't even mentioned, (and even if every one of those layers is bogus).
To pick a hot one - abortion. Someone that thinks more secular than religious thinks it is rightly a woman's choice. Conversely, a more religious person thinks it is terribly wrong, and a woman does not have a choice. Both are morally legitimate for the individual, but that individual's society will decide which view is morally right for the society. That sound right doesn't it? Well, if you strip away all the layers of either side's actions, extreme or not, arguable or not, this fundamentally divisive abortion argument is really driven by two sides of individuals with morally legitimate reasons for their actions - not two sides of baby-killers or clinic-bombers. I think you will find this to be the case for most of our controversial issues.
I think this line of thought might also answer your 2009 question. I'll get back to you with a diagram and we can invite all comers. I think the political machinations of Obamacare could be a good start. Or we could take a look at Trump's perspective on women. Like whether the size of his hands shapes that perspective.
WARNING: The real Trump, his actual words
( I had to)
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/08/polit … index.html
Newly uncovered audio of demeaning conversations Trump held over a 17-year period with radio shock-jock Howard Stern. The topics discussed included his daughter Ivanka's physique, having sex with women during their menstrual cycles, threesomes, infidelity and checking out of relationships with women after they turn 35.
Jason Chaffetz became the first sitting Republican congressman to pull his support for Trump.
"Enough! Donald Trump should not be President. He should withdraw." - Condoleezza Rice
Trump has "forfeited the right to be our party's nominee." - Lisa Murkowski
Alabama Rep. Martha Roby said Saturday she will not vote for him.
Alabama's Republican governor, Robert Bentley, said in a statement he cannot and will not vote for Donald Trump."
Maine Sen. Susan Collins reiterated her stance that she is "still not voting for Hillary, and still plans to write in someone."
Ohio Sen. Rob Portman issued a statement Saturday night in which he pulled his support and said he would instead vote for Pence.
Donald Trump's statements are beyond offensive & despicable. While I cannot vote for Hillary Clinton, I will not vote for Trump. - Utah Gov. Gary Herbert
WELL, the WRITING HAS BEEN ON THE WALL FOR A VERY LONG TIME............If your own party is distancing itself from you, you are in DEEP..............
Trump is falling......falling............ He's NOT going to be president. He is a master of hoof-and-mouth disease. He is also exhibiting a talent for self-sabotage. His ego is going to hurt, even destroy his chances of securing the presidency. Well, N-E-X-T......
Of course the right would condemn it. As they have when it is displayed on the left. The left only chooses to condemn such when displayed by the right. They claim right wing conspiracy when such conduct is exposed on the left.
I am not the first person to wonder if Democrats infiltrated the Republican party to put someone forward who would dismantle their opposition.
I am a Republican-leaning “independent”— and I have really tried to like Donald Trump, but it is difficult.
When it came to the primary vote, I checked Ben Carson, but being a Californian I knew it didn’t make much difference what Republican votes were here. Our state is Democrat.
If Trump entered the contest to attract, rally and arouse all of those who are dissatisfied with the status quo, is he now trying to make those voters so disgusted with his behavior that they will not even vote? If so, Clinton will win by default.
Trump is not listening to anyone’s advice. He is being his ”own man” no matter what the consequences. Is this the way he would run his presidency? Like a dictator who’s main concern is about what opponents think of him personally?
Maybe he has decided he doesn’t really want the responsibility of the presidency. Maybe he never did.
Maybe he’s just doing exactly what the Dems (and he, himself) wanted.
”You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”*
*This familiar saying has long been attributed to Abraham Lincoln as part of a speech given in September 1858 .(Ironically the speech was in Clinton, Illinois), but the “quote” is said not to be a part of the text printed in newspaper reports of the event.)
Is Trump’s ambition to be the one who finally fools all of the people and helps his “former friend” into the White House?
We're getting close to Trump winning , watch the election polls !
DEMOCRATS EVERYWHERE , KEEP THROWING IT ALL AGAINST THE WALL AND SEE IF IT STICKS ! AND YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN BY IT ALL !
But show us one thing , one thing , one thing , of true importance that defines the equal severity of Hilary's TREASONOUS offences !
Maybe Hilary supporters can defend these , No ? Maybe its just time to just be quiet and vote for the most immoral woman ever ! There is a huge difference between talk and doing !
The neighbor was probably astonished and shocked to hear of what he had tried to do with a young woman , when he was probably married at the time. It might not have gone along with her morals and values as a christian woman.
NEWS FLASH: Donald Trump has been accused of rape. He has also been accused of participating in orgies with underage girls. These accusations and rumors have been floating around for years.The difference between a Hillary supporter and the Trumpeters on these forums is that we don't constantly post photoshopped images with fabricated quotes and unproven innuendo over and over again. We don't have 15 threads of nonsense with links to the left-wing version of Infowars.
Mostly, we spend our time responding to posts about Bill, who is not running for president. If I were sleazy and information-challenged I could post a long list of links to articles and videos about Donald raping, philandering, and ogling and having sex with underage girls.
He is just as bad as Bill. The thing is, Bill is not running for president and Donald IS.
So, show me where Hillary raped or sexually assaulted anyone. It is ludicrous to hold Hillary more accountable for Bill's transgressions than to hold Donald accountable for his own.
Well, it took longer than expected, but it has finally happened - Trump is now automatically considered guilty of anything he is accused of, by anyone and everyone that doesn't like him. Politics as usual, I guess.
(Did it occur to you that if "These accusations and rumors have been floating around for years." yet there has never been a conviction on any of them that they just might not be true?)
Yes, of course, but you can say the same about the accusations against Bill, and Bill is not running for president but Donald IS. That is my point.
I personally am not voting against Trump because of sexual allegations against him. I believe him to be dangerously stupid about foreign policy and temperamentally unfit to be president.
I see. If one is running for president then all accusations are considered true without need for such hassles as a trial. If, anyway, the candidate is from the other party.
Sorry, PP, but you have jumped onto the mud wagon with both feet with this one. Throwing mud at the candidate you don't like, and mud that as far as anyone knows is pure fabrication to boot. For shame!
"NEWS FLASH: Donald Trump has been accused of rape. He has also been accused of participating in orgies with underage girls."
" If I were sleazy and information-challenged I could post a long list of links to articles and videos about Donald raping, philandering, and ogling and having sex with underage girls. "
"It is ludicrous to hold Hillary more accountable for Bill's transgressions than to hold Donald accountable for his own."
Really? Pointing out that Trump also has allegations floating out there, in response to repeated posts about 20-year-old allegations against Bill, who is not even running for president, is mudslingng? Really?
Pointing out allegations[/i] and then coupling it with Donald's [b]transgressions most certainly is. And so is posting unsupported allegations, for that matter. IMHO, of course - you may feel that repeating such things is a viable method of influencing voters too stupid to understand that allegations are a dime a dozen and much easier to produce than actual facts.
Again, you are ignoring the point I was making by bringing up the allegations.
Then I did not catch the "point" at all: all I saw was a statement that Trump has been accused of rape and underage sex, coupled with a complaint that Bill faced the same thing and it should not have anything to do with Hillary. Plus, of course, the insinuation that Trump did it: "So, show me where Hillary raped or sexually assaulted anyone.".
If the shoe fits, wear it. And your "News Flash" certainly fits the definition of mud. I don't find this much different than attacking Clinton for doing the necessary job as a Public Defender and then blaming her for being good at it. A little worse, maybe, as there is nothing BUT allegations about Trump's rapes while Hillary DID do her job, and do it well, but that's all.
http://hubpages.com/politics/forum/1383 … ost2844642
Oh please, I shared current news. It was not an allegation. It is a fact. I did not refer to "Donald the rapist" or post a photoshopped image with fabricated words and links to insaneleftwingnutjobs.com.
Agreed - you re-posted allegations without any effort to verify there is in any truth to any of them. It doesn't matter if they are true or not: what matters is that it might harm Trumps chance of being elected to make and spread the allegations.
Mud, in other words, and the insinuation that he IS a rapist by asking for evidence that Hillary is, too, only thickens it. That you wish to call it "news" doesn't change that - it is and will remain nothing but mud.
But that's just my opinion and dislike for current political methodology of elections today.
The term Newsflash is a word commonly used to point out the obvious.
Newsflash: Getting shot hurts!
The corrupt establishment is setting Trump up for a big rape / abuse / mistreatment of women hoax all coming out in a book to be released soon. They are going to use the false claims and fake news reports about sexual abuse as evidence, with anonymous victims from what I hear from an inside source. (?)
Its to deflect attention from Bill Clinton's many accusers, Clinton vs Jones, rape cases settled out of court. Oops, off topic. Bill's rape victims / accusers say that Clinton is a rapist, and that Hillary silenced them.
PP, is going to need the support of the community when and if that does happen.
You heard it here first.
Yes, I did all that to make a point, not to accuse Donald of anything, unlike other frequent posters on these forums, with regard to Bill, who is not running for president.
Then you have my apologies, for I surely took it as an accusation and not a point that unsupported and ridiculous claims should not be made by either side in this mud and fecal filled arena.
That was my point. Also, as I have repeatedly pointed out, Bill is not running for president, yet these people think we should judge Hillary more harshly than Donald, who has similar allegations against him. ALLEGATIONS.
We all have plenty of factual reasons to not support either candidate.
"We all have plenty of factual reasons to not support either candidate."
You got that one right! And if our handlers and owners on the Hill had presented reasonable choices neither of these clowns would ever even see a TV camera! But they didn't, and we can only choose the least objectionable or, in Trumps case, the one that might bring some positive fallout years down the road.
Yep. We, as Americans, get to make that dubious choice. If only my fellow Democrats had voted in Bernie!
Bernie could have put up a good fight against Donny. Much better than Hillary - more and more I predict a Trump victory. Something no one could have foreseen just a few months ago.
Maybe, maybe not....
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 … -forecast/
LOL I gave up on the polls and predictions a while back. While they seemed fairly accurate in the past elections, this one appears so darned polarized that none of them are honest. Like everything else they seem to be more of a tool to affect voting than an accurate, fair prediction.
I guess that's why she didn't called him a rapist. Same with Bill, right?
I, for one, am not holding Hillary responsible for Bill's transgressions. Her transgressions are enough to not want her for president.
My point is that the left doesn't cry out when anyone on the left is found to have some deviant morals. They just want to cry out when they are exposed on the right. If Bill was OK with everyone (and he was) why in the world do they have a problem with Trump?
Sigh... Show me one thread on these forums where the left brought up accusations of rape and underage sex orgies against Donald, complete with photoshopped images and fabricated captions and links to insaneleftwingnutjobs.com.
Didn't you just bring it up in this thread?
Now, I believe you are being deliberately obtuse. Of course I brought it up to show that allegations exist on both sides but one side on these forums is yammering on and on about Hillary's husband while the other has remained silent about Donald's allegations. It's called comparison and contrast.
Not only that. That same side, keeps stating as a fact those allegations about Bill, but then whine when someone ask them if their guy should be treated by the same logic.
You guys are hilarious. I believe much of Bill's behavior is common knowledge and not 'allegations'. Remember the need to define what is is? He did not have sex with that woman but there certainly were some suspicious stains on that dress.
Seriously. Why do any of you care if Trump said something, or not. No one cares that Bill did something or not. The only problem I see is that someone who identifies as a Republican and is running for office said something. If he were a democrat you guys would be arguing the other side of the point.
Hypocrisy, thy name is democrat.
If Billy was convicted of lying when he said he didn't have sex (and he was), then the inescapable conclusion is that he DID have sex.
That's not an allegation - it's a fact.
Yes, the Monica Lewinsky affair is a fact The rape allegations are still allegations.
By the way, Donald has admitted to cheating on his many wives. Not that it matters one whit to me.
Me neither. I think if the truth were known over half the population cheats on their spouse - why we make such a big deal out of it I don't know.
Hadn't heard Billy was accused of rape, just having consensual sex many times with many women. But if it's on the 'net and he's a Dem to boot, I'm sure it's absolutely true and no one remotely related to him should ever again hold office anywhere in the country.
Actually, Hillary (and maybe even Bill) would be better off in a more totalitarian regime where the owners of the citizenry are not subjected to pesky laws but instead just to the machinations of other politicians where Hillary would no doubt do very well. I really don't think she is capable of understanding that the laws she writes and supports apply to her - just to the peons she governs.
I agree although I still see a lot of people who identify as democrat arguing that point.
The MonicaLewinsky affair is a fact. The heinous consensual relationship was admitted to by both Bill and Monica.
The rape charges are allegations, just like the allegations that Donnie participated in orgies with underage girls. I treat them both as allegations. How is that hypocritical?
The allegations aren't about Monica.
How many posts are in Hubpages about Bill being a rapist, abuser? And, isn't that one of Trump's arguments against Hillary? Clearly, someone "cares" about what he did (or didnt).
I guess all the politicians mentioned in this thread are democrats.
Btw, Im not a democrat and I dont even like Hillary.
I haven't read any of those posts. Not saying they don't exist because there are some whoppers of accusations going around.
So you know, I'm an independent. Don't like either candidate. Gotta vote for someone and that someone just can't be Hillary. I simply think it is ridiculous to see complaints (valid complaints) followed up by threads that can easily garner the same complaints.
Maybe you didn't read any of the 837402484, even though both (wild) of you commented on that specific thread.
Maybe it was the "This forum is about Hillary and Bill Clinton" that got you.
Both of you are more than welcome to complain there too.
Yeah, that is why many are going to vote for a third party or write a name. You know, they won't vote for a horrible person like Trump, and more so they won't excuse or defend him.
I don't have to read every comment in every thread nor do I have to feel guilty for not doing so. I also don't have to comment on every comment in every thread.
The comment you made here was about the most ignorant thing I've read today.
You don't have to, I never said that.
We all select what to read, when to comment and when to ignore something.
If you are accusing me of yammering I think you are being willfully obtuse.
Well, in PRETTYPANTHER's defense, she has never said she isn't a hypocrite, not that I know of, SO it must be ok.
Isn't that the same attitude that the right displays toward Clinton? So what makes Trump the sole victim of the mudslinging?
More Than 150 Republican Leaders Don’t Support Donald Trump.
The brilliance of your commentary is blinding. Still don't have an original thought of your own?
You think what you are saying is original? LOL! Let me tell you something; nothing being said in this forum is not already being said on a thousand internet forums across the nation. The media is guiding this conversation, and you and I are taking part in it. You and I are just tally numbers for the right and left.
Even when you have no rebuttal you go for the same old character assassination points that every other person on the left plays over and over like a broken record. Let me ask you this, when's the last time you debated a conservative without thinking that they were a racist, sexist, homophobe? That's a rhetorical question, so before you answer you might as well keep it to yourself because everybody already knows the answer.
So while you're thinking that one over, have another meme.
I have debated wilderness, GA Anderson, mrpopo, livetolearn, and gmwilliams, all of whom I respect greatly. I have not called anyone here a racist, sexist homophobe, so are you saying you can read my thoughts? Where did you get that?
Oh, that's right. You don't want an answer because then you might have to prove your assertion. I challenge you to provide any evidence that proves I believe any of the above people are racist, sexist homophobes.
BTW, I like your pretty picture.
I'm going to put you down for; Does not follow written instructions.
Here you are defending Democrats use of the race card to garner votes.
http://hubpages.com/politics/forum/4143 … tain-power
Wow, you went back six years! Here is the exchange for anyone who is wondering:
POPPA BLUES WROTE:
The article points out that the left promotes the idea that America is a racist country, that the republicans are racists, in order to garner the minority vote, without which they wouldn't be able to hold onto power. It isn't about black racism, it's about the left using racism as a tool, promoting the idea that republicans, and the Tea Party, and conservatives are racists to get votes for themselves. What can be more racist than that?
PRETTY PANTHER WROTE:
I have no doubt that some in the left use racism in America, and particularly racism among Tea Party members and Republicans, as a way to encourage those who care about racism to vote Democratic. That is not racist; that is simply highlighting one significant difference between the two parties so that people can make an informed decision about who they want to represent them
Am I defending the use of the race card? You all can be the judge, but I don't think so. Pointing out real racism within a political party is not using the race card.
I appreciate being included in that list. I can see I'm in good company.
The feeling is mutual, by the way.
“There is nobody who holds any position of responsibility who in private conversations views Donald Trump as equipped mentally, morally and intellectually to be the president of the United States. But scores of Republican leaders have failed a fundamental test of moral courage and political leadership in not speaking truth to the American people about what is so obvious.” said Steve Schmidt, a veteran GOP strategist.
“Everything Trump touches dies,” said Republican consultant Rick Wilson.
“Since Day One, I have been waving these giant red flags in front of people saying, ‘No, no, no, don’t go down this road because this road leads to our party being very tainted and a candidate who’s dangerously unfit to be president,’ but people went storming ahead down that road anyhow,” said Katie Packer, a former Romney.
“They bought the ticket knowing there wouldn’t be enough life rafts once the ship hit the iceberg. We knew that no one who has gotten involved with Donald Trump in his personal life, in his professional life or in his political life has come out of that for the better. No one. So why any of our aspiring political leaders thought that they could survive being associated with him and grow from that is beyond me", said John Weaver, a longtime republican strategist.
“This is going to last forever,” Wilson said. “For years now, Democrats will be able to roll out TV ads and say, ‘When John Smith says today he’s for a brighter future, remember who he stood by: Donald Trump. He stood by Donald Trump’s misogyny, racism, sexism and stupidity.’ ”
“Donald Trump has always been a ridiculous candidate for president and the only thing that’s surprising is that it took this long for that ridiculousness to gel,” Stevens said. “It’s already hurt our country, it’s already hurt our politics. It’s just been a very destructive candidacy.”
Cause Bill is not relevant.
Donald Trump concluded his Sunday night “debate prep” by hosting a press conference with women who have accused former President Bill Clinton of sexual assault or rape.
He was flanked by Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick, who have each previously accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10 … users.html
I just saw that. Really stupid move on his part, but I suppose he's desperate and figures he has nothing to lose.
Someone should give Hillary his quotes about those women.
"I don't necessarily agree with his victims. His victims are terrible. He is, he is really a victim himself."
"These people are just, I don't know, where he met them - where he found them," Trump continued. "But the whole group — it's truly an unattractive cast of characters. Linda Tripp, Lucianne Goldberg, I mean, this woman, I watch her on television. She is so bad. The whole group, Paula Jones, Lewinsky, it's just a really unattractive group. I'm not just talking about physical."
Linda Tripp ïs "the personification of evil.”
"Paula Jones is a loser"
Hillary is always supremely prepared.
Oh, the irony of these women sitting next to Donnie, who has bragged about his predatory actions toward women. I guess his argument will be "yes, I'm bad but Bill is worse." Heckuva strategy.
Bill is not running for president and Donnie is.
What is truly "deplorable" IS that democrats have constantly chosen the Low Road of Invented Racism ,
They have chosen the invented sin of nationalism .
They have chosen to reinvent the term Isolationism .
They have EVEN chosen to use the implication and false flag of sexism .
After all , according to liberals , it is Anti American to protect our borders , it is counterproductive to HAVE and ENFORCE an immigration policy at all , it is deplorable to show patriotism !
If you cannot win an election fairly on the record of accomplishment , INVENT ONE !
Your last line says it all ! .............Therein lies the lie . Because the Clintons are tied at the hips ! His offences to women are hers to claim and own AND DEFEND . You know that too ! But the lies keep coming in her candidacy and in her supporters . You .
Paula tweeted that she will 100% vote for Trump!
Read "Clinton vs Jones" case. Bill lost.
Bill pulled his pants down in front of Paula Jones and pulled his hard-on out and told Paula to "Kiss it." Hillary slandered Paula horribly publicly.
"Your a smart girl, let's keep this between ourselves." ~ Bill Clinton
We are ‘Terrified’ of Hillary - Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey
Don't turn a blind eye!
The video--which appears to be from the 1992 Presidential campaign and is watermarked with an ABC logo--shows Clinton putting his hand between the legs of an anonymous woman. The woman, who appears to be either a flight attendant or member of his campaign staff, quickly removes Clinton's probing paw.
Video: http://www.hannity.com/articles/electio … -15177251/
So why is the mainstream media so unfair, bias, anti-Trump and pro-Clinton? Oh...its okey, because its an elite establishment vs the outsider. Globalism vs Americanism
Yes it is clearly offensive to say it in a social perspective but the reason behind it might not be bewildered....we can't judge him as "Democrats" it's his point of view...
taht are very nice post...not have avialable at this type post
The fly was later found dead but it has been ruled a suicide.
So wikileaks just released one of Hillary's E Mails where she refers to Muslims as Sandni**ers. Just a little locker room banter I suppose.
http://shoebat.com/2016/10/10/busted-hi … eaks-dump/
If everything else was OK with your :"Christian" friend, and it took this last thing to make her rethink her choice for President, I'd suspect she needs to rethink her Christian principles. Too many Christians judge a politician on abortion and abortion alone. Set that law aside (yes, it is the law) and look at how the person lives. HIllary and President Obama are both practicing Christians (evident by the way the live their daily lives) and America's Christians rallied behind a Morman (last time) and a I Don't Know What this time. If you asked me, that's pretty sorry Christianity.
Hillary Clinton "says things that are untrue... often"
Wikileaks: and her staff knows it.
* https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/em … 8AKdARdAV3
Pulitzer Prize winning Politico rates Hillary's truthfulness on policy at 45% - the highest of any politician this year. Trump's rate is 4%.
The majority of voters don't trust fact-checkers, including liberal run Politifact, which often dismisses logic. Politifact has gone so far as to deny facts, the truth. If you want to keep using Politifact as your go to, then you shoot your own credibility in the foot. Do some research.
* http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ … t_checking
Example: Trump said he would release his taxes before the election. He is still being audited. The election hasn't come and gone that I know of.
Politifact says that is False because Trump broke his "promise". That defies all logic about a promise to date. ... But, maybe they know something we don't. Will the IRS delay the audit till after the election?
There's a Politifact joke there! I can logically think of many promises Hillary Clinton has broken and lies about.
Is that from the same Rasmussen who was a paid consultant for the RNC during Bush’s campaign in 2004(1)? The same Rasmussen whose methods and bias have been called out again and again(2)(3)(4)? Definitely a reliable source. No bias there. Perhaps you should do some research.
(1) https://thinkprogress.org/politico-fail … .xadk4vw2e
(3) http://www.politico.com/story/2010/01/d … 031047?o=0
(4) http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co … ngly/?_r=0
Hillary straight up stole her nomination from Bernie Sanders. If the party of Liberalism had a shred of integrity they would have stopped Hillary from hijacking the nomination and Trump would be debating Bernie right now. Had that happened it would have been a landslide for Bernie.
I know lots of conservatives who would have voted for Bernie despite the fact that he's a socialist goon. At least Trump won the nomination fair and square against a bunch of sellout, lifetime politicians.
Hillary won her nomination the same way Obama won his nomination in his race against her. The Democrats have superdelegates to prevent someone like Trump "stealing" their party. If the GOP had them they wouldn't be in the fix they are now.
Yes, Hillary won both the popular vote and the delegate count.
Are you sure about that?
Appears 2016 Democratic voter fraud was caught on tape.
They wait till they think no one is looking to stuff ballot boxes with ballots.
Waiting for the the last voting poll at the end, that's the best one.
Duh, forget about hidden cameras, huh.
I read an article today that said Hillary could win the election before election day, with the mail in ballots. It's a whole lot easier to stuff ballot boxes that way.
All democrats say in unison 'You go girl. Way to think ahead.'
Yes, and lots of dead people voting too.
Alan Schulkin, Commissioner of the Board of Elections in New York City told a reporter with a hidden cam all about how Democrats bus people around to vote at different polling places. They use minority communities for the voter fraud. Schulkin, never said they were going to do anything to try to stop it. Yeah, that's just the way it is.
He sounds like an honest man and would just like his vote to count for who he votes for, instead of being canceled out by 10 fake votes. But, will he do something?
I already knew about this being done. There will be people watching for this kind of activity come Nov. 8th with cameras. I guess they pay the bused in fraudsters $20 or so and a new t-shirt to wear at a different poll, or they just go in the bus again and come out wearing something different and go vote again at the same place.
You conservatives are making excuses already for Trump's dismal showing. Every credible news outlet has Clinton ahead. You and Trump have already lost, admit it to yourself. You should now prepare the implements for your post-Mortem. Remember, I told you so, and you heard it here first.
Post mortem? This disgust with business as usual in Washington is not going to go away. Trump is not an embarrassing phenomenon. He is a strong indication of how fed up many are with Washington's shenanigans. He will lose but the movement will not. His strange popularity will embolden better men and women to step up to the plate and break the chain of corruption.
You could well be right, but for now, such a movement deserves a better messenger.
I'm a libertarian (Gary Jonson is an idiot). However, I personally take a strong conservative view as Pro-Life...but, I believe in freedom, so people can make their own choice. But, I have personal limits. Hillary said babies don't have a constitutional right, (she would make sure they don't). Hellary thinks babies can be aborted within hours of their birth. They would suffer excruciating pain. No, I can not condone that, no humanity there. She would appoint liberal judges to the Supreme Court that would agree with her, creating another death panel for unborn babies. Maybe she needs total body blood transfusions from the youngest to stay alive or she is a demon from hell? And that, is how true liberals would see that.
You can take your bigotry of conservatives and shove it!
Oops, I guess you already have.
colorfulone: Yes, I'm sure about the rules for the Democrats and Republicans. It is all well documented - not in blogs but in official sources.
Yes and the party chooses who their leader will be rather than the people. They chose the establishment for you. You get the most unqualified mess the Democratic party has ever produced, bar none! If it were Bernie they wouldn't be able to muster a fraction of the ammo that they can against Hillary.
This paper seems relevant: http://www.lsuc.on.ca/media/sith_colloq … ichael.pdf
The ethical dilemma appears to be whether or not to:
A) defend your client to the best of your ability regardless of any knowledge you possess of the client's actions*
B) given knowledge of the client's actions, to hold back and defend the client primarily on grounds of reasonable doubt as a means to discover the truth while maintaining a reasonable degree of defense
From the above paper A seems to be the more ethically questionable given its acts (mudslinging, technicalities). B avoids this:
"Some legal ethicists advocate a weak adversarial position. They argue that a lawyer’s cross-examination of a witness that the lawyer knows to be truthful should be limited to questions that undermine the prosecution’s reasonable doubt case. A lawyer need not defend the case to the max, for example by harming the reputation of a witness who the lawyer knows to be truthful nor attempts to cast blame on persons the lawyer knows to be innocent."
Did Hillary do A or B? Either way, from what I've perused of the case it seems the main fault lies with the prosecutors or crime lab for losing the piece of underwear with the blood and DNA evidence. If they had that, it wouldn't matter how strongly Hillary defended her client.
*Note that this is not to say you are making a judgment of innocent or guilty. You have information that can be used to determine guilt, but you are not making that judgement yourself. For example, it's possible you may know that your client killed someone, but you don't know whether your client will be charged with murder, manslaughter or exculpated with self-defense. Read more here: https://www.quora.com/What-is-it-like-t … ?srid=6S3S
I am becoming more and more interested in internet pols showing big differences between ,standard polling and online polling , considering that Hilary has the mainstream media in her pocket , the internet , as yet is not hers-- that is a big difference !
America could be in for a huge surprise !
Melania must be happy.
by Grace Marguerite Williams6 months ago
PresidentLove or hate Hillary Clinton, she is leading significantly in the polls for Democratic presidential candidate. She has the political smarts & experience to led this country. She also have...
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter3 days ago
Right now it looks like Putin/Trump are in agreement about the hacking. Can this issue be addressed without being partisan? Is the future of US democracy at stake? What are Trump's advisors telling him?
by Mike Russo3 months ago
Donald Trump lies almost every time he opens his mouth and then denies that he lied. He attacks anybody who disagrees with him by using slander, insults, and downright civil abuse. In rallies, he encourages...
by Mike Russo2 months ago
Trump is not your normal candidate nor is he running a normal campaign. I know the word normal is relative, but in the world of campaigns, it is based on previous campaigns that had some sense of being normal with...
by Scott Bateman4 weeks ago
No surprise here. How ironic that the far right in the U.S. is fine with Russian interference.https://www.washingtonpost.com/business … ge%2Fstory
by Dawn Michael5 years ago
Some men just like to date some women for fun and then others they want to marry, what is the difference between the two.
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.