I'm not talking corona virus. I'm just curious how democrats think the DNC will extricate themselves from the debacle of shoving Biden into front runner status.
Will they nominate Bernie or bring someone else in? I know Biden says he's looking for a woman in case he can't serve. Will that be the ploy? Find a popular female, put her on the ticket and then he steps out of it?
I just can't see Biden as viable after every stumble and his behavior now during the crisis, on top of these new sexual misconduct allegations.
Yet you support Trump despite his many accusations of sexual behavior. Pot.....kettle!
Do you have anything intelligent to add or are you just passing through to lob inane accusations?
We are talking about the grab them by the pussy president, aren't we?
I guess we are at this point talking about Biden. The questions asked
"Will they nominate Bernie or bring someone else in? I know Biden says he's looking for a woman in case he can't serve. Will that be the ploy? Find a popular female, put her on the ticket and then he steps out of it?"
It is obvious the thread has once again turned into a "let's trash Trump fest".
So, if we are diving in to compare sexual abuse, let's get to it.
Reade said she was sent to take a gym bag to Biden when he allegedly sexually assaulted her.
"We were alone, and it was the strangest thing. There was no, like, exchange really, he just had me up against the wall," Reade claimed.
She then described in graphic detail what Biden allegedly proceeded to do next as he assaulted her. She said he was kissing her and asked her at one point if she wanted to "go somewhere else."
"Tara Reade, who was at the time serving as an aide in Biden’s senate office, told podcast host Katie Halper that Biden kissed her and penetrated her with his fingers without her consent. Reade said she pushed Biden off of her and he allegedly became annoyed and said: “Come on, man! I heard you liked me.”
“It was like everything shattered at that moment,” Reade told Halper in the interview, which was posted Wednesday. “He was, like, my father’s age. He was this champion of women’s rights in my eyes. I couldn’t believe it was happening.”
Reade alleges that after she pulled away from Biden, he pointed in her face and said, “You’re nothing to me.”
When it was over, she says Biden said to her, "C'mon man, I heard you liked me."
So, I guess we could be talking about the presidential candidate that did not just boast about grabbing them in the Pu--y. But formally jammed his fingers into someone's pu----.
Maybe we should turn our attention to just commenting on the questions that have been exposed? Otherwise, it seems we are going into the weeds making comparisons of who is a worse pervert, Trump or Biden. As I have done above by providing an example. It seems, in the end, all the comparing will do nothing but show the best of hypocrisy.
It is obvious the thread has once again turned into a "let's trash Trump fest". - No Shalee, it's not.
I was reacting upon - "I just can't see Biden as viable after every stumble and his behavior now during the crisis, on top of these new sexual misconduct allegations." -
It's the simple fact that if you support a president who finds it ok to grab a woman without consent by the "pussy". And fornicates with a porn star when his wife is pregnant. Then you don't have the moral right to accuse a president front runner. Simple as that.
I would have said the same thing when Bill Clinton was in the white house and George W. Bush was being accused while running for president.
""I just can't see Biden as viable after every stumble and his behavior now during the crisis, on top of these new sexual misconduct allegations." -
I also went back to the OP, before I focused on your quote.
I didn't read any moral indignation or criticism in the OP. Conversely, the OP even described the issue as allegations. I took the point of the thread to be whether Democrats would be okay with a candidate being portrayed as just like the evil orange man they detest.
I think it is a fair question. The only "moral" aspect I have seen injected into the thread has been from the anti-Trump folks declaring others have no right to mention my mother's warts because their mother has warts too.
So yes, this has turned into just one more Trump-bashing thread.
To be honest GA,
It surprises me how important the sex life of a president is in the US If you cheat on your wife it's a higher sin then not paying taxes when you have a trillion-dollar company. (Amazon comes to mind.)
I don't give a damn about the private life of my president. (The Spanish and Dutch one)
But I do give a damn about the abuse of power, That was clearly seen by Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. And I don't have much respect for both of them.
It always surprises me, and perhaps you have an answer. That a country like the US who has one of the biggest porn industries in the world is so obsessed with the sex lives of their celebrities.
Rape or any form of sexual assault, which both Biden and Trump have been accused of, is not a "sex life."
Marital infidelity is not a disqualifier in my book, but forcing oneself on a woman, or paying a woman to be silent....those automatically disqualify a candidate for me. Of course, without proof, one must evaluate for one's own self what is believable or not. Trump has admitted on tape to assaulting women and intentionally walking in on half-dressed underage girls so there is no question he is a sexual predator. I guess some people are fine with it, though.
Interesting how you forgot the worst one of all...Bill Clinton. Among the ones you mentioned, he's the only one who paid out on a sexual harassment lawsuit...to Paula Jones. Then...there was the blue dress....
When you are as big as President Donald Trump and Biden...you're a big target. Accusations are easy to make. You are correct "without proof, one must evaluate for one's own self what is believable or not" Interesting how no female came forward to corroborate President Donald Trump's claim. Seems like it would have been an easy lawsuit.
Are you forgetting Trump's paying off the playmate and the porn star, Mike?
1) Clinton is not running for President and is irrelevant to this discussion.
2) Trump bragged, on tape, about assaulting women and ogling underage girls in various stages of undress. He admits to being a sexual predator so there is no doubt that he is.
3) You need to read up on the allegations against Trumo, many of which follow a pattern, and some of which are corroborated.
If I could answer your sex question Peterstreep, I would be too rich to have time for these forums. ;-)
But I can give you my reason for viewing infidelity as the worst sin. I see it as the worst of betrayals of trust, of breaking a solemn commitment to someone that has given you their deepest trust.
Even admitting that I understand that it is only human to be weak—as in failing to live up to your best, I find infidelity to be unforgivable in almost every instance.
That is why the sexual exploits of a married president make a difference to me. If they can't be trusted to honor that commitment, I don't see how they can be trusted to honor any commitment.
Now, about that porn thing . . .
GA, The questions posed on this thread were very direct, not sure why some did not take the opportunity to address the questions. I had hoped some would share their thoughts on Joe choosing a female VP or an opinion on will the DNC go with Bernie. Maybe even bring up what a brokered convention would men to them. I guess all too boring.
The questions --- "Will they nominate Bernie or bring someone else in? I know Biden says he's looking for a woman in case he can't serve. Will that be the ploy? Find a popular female, put her on the ticket and then he steps out of it?"
It just seems those that dislike Trump can't help themselves from bringing him into every conversation. It also appears many of the same people lack the ability to even speak positively about the two Democratic candidates in the running. It may be they are spending more time getting to know everything Trump, and not really knowing much about their own prospective candidates.
This thread was a good one for Dems to share their thoughts on the upcoming election. It looks like Biden will be their guy, so why not discuss him? I mean I think many of us would agree, Trump has been well trashed. In fact most of the time it's the same old broken record repeating all the same "stuff".
As things stand now—in the Democrat primary results, I can't imagine any way the Democrats can ditch Biden. Nor do I think they should.
But, I do think his VP choice has become very important. I think Biden is going to get beat up in the General election campaign, and the backstop of a good VP choice may be the only thing that saves him.
To be clear, I am not giving any credence to the sexual allegations. I don't know what to believe—either way, but I do see those charges as clubs that will hammer away at him. I like Joe Biden. I don't agree with these 'personal space' and 'hair sniffing' charges.
It may have been 30 years ago, but I do have a personal opinion of the man, and to see him continue to move forward after losing a wife and kid in an accident was a plus for me—relative to personal character.
I can imagine that when you lose a young child, every young child is viewed as that much more precious, re. those hair sniffing charges. I think they are bogus.
My participation in this thread was only relative to the point of Democrats claiming Republicans were hypocrites if they even asked how the Democrats would consider a candidate charged with all the worse traits of the man they despise. There was no moral equivalency component in my comments.
I will be honest, I can see them getting rid of Biden and having a brokered convention. I won't go into the negatives of why I think Biden poses problems to being elected. I will agree if he added a woman to his ticket he would make him a more favorable candidate. If it were the right female. I think Amy Klobuchar would be a good pick.
The sexual allegations may haunt Biden. If Ms.Reede becomes more vocal and more explicit (can't imagine how much more explicit she could get) I would venture to say it will be a problem. I find it far too obvious that Ms. Reede finds she must step up now with her allegation. I never took the hair sniffing seriously, just a media blitz.
In regards to hypocrisy in this thread, it seems in this case,
to be bilateral. Both can join in this one loaded to the hilt.
My interest in the thread was the actual questions. Needed a respite from all the other "stuff'. I was hoping I could learn something about the Dem's thoughts on the upcoming election. Go figure.
Lol. So you are willing to support someone who can very easily be compared to someone you can't stand, on the point you choose to focus on. You lost credibility on this one.
We are talking about the grab them by the pussy president, aren't we?"
I would think your statement is a direct insult toward the president. Perhaps you don't feel your statement added to the Trump-bashing fest. I do. Need I read all of your comments and offer more fodder?
How is merely repeating what Trump bragged about bashing him? Trump bragged about grabbing women by the pussy. He is proud of it! Please explain how merely stating a fact about Trump, which he himself is so proud of, is "bashing." ?
I couldn't have put it better, Sandy. But then....he may have changed since then. BWAHAHA! Jest pullin' yore leg!
If he changed, it's only because his pecker shriveled up from all the fried chicken and McD's he eats.
We are talking about the grab them by the pussy president, aren't we?"
It is obvious the thread has once again turned into a "let's trash Trump fest". - No Shalee, it's not.
Yes, Peter does quickly turn to a Bash Trump fest. As your very statement indicates. I note you are not willing to address the questions PTP posted. Perhaps you should address the questions as I have done. This thread is about "Will Joe Biden Survive". Here are the questions. As you will see these questions do not include anything to do with Trump.
"Will they nominate Bernie or bring someone else in? I know Biden says he's looking for a woman in case he can't serve. Will that be the ploy? Find a popular female, put her on the ticket and then
he steps out of it?"
Your comment ---"I was reacting upon - "I just can't see Biden as viable after every stumble and his behavior now during the crisis, on top of these new sexual misconduct allegations." This comment has nothing to do with Trump.
"It's the simple fact that if you support a president who finds it ok to grab a woman without consent by the "pussy". And fornicates with a porn star when his wife is pregnant. Then you don't have the moral right to accuse a president front runner. Simple as that."
After reading this part of your comment, I must assume you would not support Biden or find anyone moral that would support such a man. I note you have nothing to say about Joe's forcible rape charge.
I will add, I find you have a lot of nerve to feel you have the right to tell anyone what moral rights they have.
What I wanted to point out is that it would be hypocritical if you accuse Biden of sexual misbehavior and support president Trump.
That's the core of it.
It could well be that Biden misused his power position to sexually assault women. And you should take a woman seriously when she is accusing a higher positioned men. It shows that the #metoo movement was necessary as people like Weinstein, Epstein, Brett Kavanaugh and many more should not get away that easily.
Sadly enough, sexual assault does not impact much the career of men.. Trump was voted in, Biden became vice president, Weinstein got away with it for a long time, etc.
As for Biden, I would not vote for him. As to me, he is too conservative and more of the same and doesn't show much backbone. I would vote for Sanders as we definitely need a different approach towards capitalism. As capitalism became too much monopolism for companies like Amazon, Uber, Facebook, Apple, etc.
The great thing about capitalism was that you had a choice. But as the companies become too big, choices are reduced. And capitalism, in the end, becomes just as dangerous as pure communism. - but this is a whole debate.
Biden doesn't have the backbone to tackle this difficult issue. He will be "bought" by Amazon and the like, just like Trump is "bought" by them. I don't see much difference between the two. Biden only is better in sweet talk.
As for the nerve to tell anyone what moral rights... Yes I do. As it is simply highly hypocritical to talk about the sexual assault of Biden if Trump has a record too.
I'm not addressing Trump's politics, that's a different thing altogether.
I usually respond to inanity with inanity. Nothing new there!
That a Trump supporter would even say this....
[Reminds self that Trump fans abandoned minimum standards of conduct for Trump long ago but still demand it of others]
Oh, never mind.
As much as I'd personally like to see them nominate Bernie, as of right now, I don't think it will happen. They've set the full force of the Establishment, donors, media, and the rest of the machine against him. I see a lot of speculation and neoliberal calls for the Dems to jump to Cuomo, though he says he won't run. Just saw an article calling for Obama to get more involved in the selection of a nominee as well.
Eastward, we have to ask the questions regarding what is so wrong and where the real loyalties lie for a "system" that will pull together to deep six any man that dare to challenge it? In the face of all this, the political parties are just alternate labels with the same "stuff" in the box. Are we all just being played for fools here with the nominee predetermined, with the process there to just placate the masses with the idea that they really had a choice?
Credence, I totally agree. As was previously determined by the courts, the Democrats are basically a brand and have no legal obligation to fairly select a nominee. They can select the nominee in a cigar-smoke filled backroom if they please:
https://osociety.org/2019/08/15/court-r … y-wish-to/
And the fact they are pushing such a weak candidate in order to stop Bernie and protect their own latitude to engage in political corruption is very disturbing and indicative that we are dealing with the same contents of the box with different labels. It certainly seems the DNC is willing to risk a loss to Trump, being more comfortable with that outcome than a Sanders Presidency. Bernie is like the parent coming down the hall about to catch the kids with their hands in the cookie jar before dinner.
I did hold out hope that they would learn an important lesson from the 2016 and the negative exposure about rigging the primary would cause them to be more straightforward. I do feel a bit foolish about that, but who wants to believe the rulers of our country are that childish and petty? It's a hard and embarrassing pill to swallow, but the rest of the world has been watching our political circus in horror. It's no longer a dirty American secret. I'll admit, at first, I underestimated how little the Democrats cared about winning the election.
It seems it will take a miracle for Bernie to become the nominee, or really, any candidate with integrity at this point. If not, we are left with the gut-wrenching choice of two alleged rapists who shamelessly cater to the 1% against the best interests of the people (or putting support behind a third party, writing in a candidate in places where it's even allowed, or abstaining altogether in protest). I'm really not sure if it's more advantageous to have a neoliberal in office now, or to deal with 4 more years of Trump and regroup for 2024.
As we move to the nomination, we should also consider that among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who prefer Bernie Sanders for the nomination, 15% say they’d back Pres. Trump over Joe Biden in the fall:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-c … itter_abcn
In response to your last paragraph.
I guess what i have a hard time comprehending is how can anyone who support Sanders consider Trump as an acceptable substitute, especially after Trump has been in office for over 3 years and the guy that was supposed to shake Washington up is anything but......
How can Bernie people and Trump people have anything in coming?
It is a curiosity and a sign of the times, Credence. I would be interested to see this as a mixed methods study, with qualitative interviews of the independents referenced in addition to the qualitative data. What does supporting Trump really mean to these independents? Does it mean they prefer Trump's policies? I doubt it. Are they thinking strategically that 4 years of Trump is a lesser evil than 4-8 years of neoliberal rule and whatever that prompts afterwards? I think it's more likely. I was actually surprised to see the overwhelmingly positive response that Bernie got during his Fox appearances. The most defining point that I think Bernie and Trump people agree on is disgust for The Establishment. I'd hope that given the chance, people would choose Bernie over Trump and he'd have the chance to "shake Washington up" in a way that better serves the average citizen.
You'd be surprised at how much they have in common.
You've bought into the media lock step lie about any who voted for Trump.
If you don't trust me, go back and listen to Yang on the topic. We are sick of business as usual in Washington. Bernie is a populist candidate, just like Trump was, is.
So, those of us sick of Washington are very open to other ideas. If Bernie could give a clear cut and believable way to pay for a lot of his ideas I'd be willing to listen.
L to L, the only thing they must have in common is a common distaste for the "political establishment" period, both parties. And you did say that.
But beyond that the question remains would you trade that in for an authoritarian/fascist type or a "socialist". I suppose that is where the rubber meets the road for me.
If Trump stopped talking about cuts to Social Security and Medicare, while enriching the corporate oligarchy at my expense, I would not have anywhere near the problems with the Right that I currently do.
I will look more closely at Yang's positions and comment, later.
"Are we all just being played for fools here with the nominee predetermined, with the process there to just placate the masses with the idea that they really had a choice?"
Yes. Now, do you think the Dark Side' of the Force is just the Republicans?
Republicans are the villains because they are more resistant to any change to the status quo and Trump certainly is not the "right stuff"
The outcome of selection of candidates from the Democrats make me see all this as less of a hypothesis and more of a theorem.
Can you state that "theorem" Cred? I am not sure what your comment means.
Sorry to befuddle.
Republicans= support of the status quo, hegemony of the oligarchy.
While the two parties are guilty of much of the same practices, only one party has a platform and candidates who recognize and are serious about correcting them.
Okay, I see what you meant. However, I am not as confident that your "one party" and its candidate are serious about making the changes you think they will.
If that were true Biden wouldn't have been able to run away with the primaries.
On the contrary both Sanders and Warren were committed. But the rank and file is now, deevolving into some form squishy Republicanism.
But we were ambushed by an intimidating establishment which is part and parcel of the paragraph that you quoted me on earlier. A situation that involves all Republican and a dissapointingly large segment of Democrats.
Your point is well taken, obviously the conservative democrat rules the day in all but a handful of states. That is why we end up with Biden, thus far.
We do have the right candidates, just not the nerve to boldly make the changes necessary and that if anything is why Trump may well win again.
It sounds like you are saying "we," (Democrats of your mindset), are the Democrat party, not the majority of Democrat voters. That doesn't seem to jibe with your preference for one-person-one-vote pure majority-rules professions.
Yes, I meant Democrats of my mindset much like the ones in Colorado and California.
And, yes, I stand shoulder to shoulder with whoever the majority of delegates select to beat Trump in the fall.
But, nobody says that I have to like it. In my opinion, it may well prove to be a fatal error on our part.
So, still I am into one person, one vote, majority rules. I can take no other stand.
I know. I just disagree. I do not want to see pure democracy making our national decisions.
Sometime you will have to start a thread on this GA.
What is it about and the fear of democracy represented by the voices of the people over those few that claim to know better and actually operate in their own best interests, that you seem obsessed about?
Okay, here you go:
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/347 … r-a-nation
"Republicans are the villains because they are more resistant to any change to the status quo and Trump certainly is not the "right stuff"
Not sure why you feel Rep are adverse to change. We Rep took a chance on a man that was not a politician, his agenda was to tear down the status quo, give a form of transparency to the likes we have never seen. Not sure if you realize Trump has pretty much shocked the world with CHANGE.
Hillary had no agenda but an old tired worn out one the Dems have always dished up. Once again the Dems seem so far to be pushing a politician that has no agenda, nothing but pretty --- "I will be doing this".
You could not have used a worse word to describe the mindset of today's Rep. We wanted change, we got it, and we will continue to fight for change. Our change is to go forward, not stay in the status quo or actually go backward. Trump, has brought change, and it's too bad many don't realize that. Although they are apt to benefit from it.
Their change is from my perspective in the wrong direction, that's the difference.
Threatening the viability of social programs, putting the well being of corporations and wealthy oligarchs over the people, supporting profligate military spending, having a "starve the beast" attitude regarding government. I am a liberal and a progressive and I don't think that what Trump and his captive GOP have become is positive change. Bernie Sanders and his platform is more my style of populism and "positive" change.
Trump, when the day is done, IS a Republican and Rightwinger in every sense, and I am always compelled to vote against that and everything that that stands for, in my opinion.
The wrong direction. That's your opinion. Half the country disagrees. Social programs, I am for some and against many. I feel it necessary to have a good military. You call yourself progressive. It's not progressive to have government-run one's life. I like making my own decisions. Bernies offers nothing but 'I will take care of you". I prefer to take care of myself.
As you can see we think differently. My opinion is just as important as yours. And I applaud your right to vote. I have a vote too... In the end, the people will choose the path. Not me, not you, but us.
Obama appears too far right for the new left. Do you think Obama could help any candidate bring the Bernie supporters into the fold? I'm not so certain.
My curiosity has also peaked to as what will be the DNC's next move will be. in light of Ms. Tara Reede's story resurfacing.
In my opinion, they may have cornered themselves and may have to either heed the voice of the people and go with Bernie. However, they could broker in someone they feel they could win with such as Cuomo. Cuomo has been getting positive recognition for his handling of the Covid19 virus. In my opinion, Cuomo is doing a good job and deserves the positive recognition he is receiving.
Would Biden be more plausible if he brought on a woman running mate? Just my opinion, no at this point I don't think it would help. I think Biden is carrying too much baggage at this point. Plus, his agenda is weak.
It continues to be entertaining to hear the Right attack Biden for what Trump is known for and they elected him anyway. You simply can't make this kinda $#it up.
Randy I realize you have a one track comment capability but not everything is about Trump to everybody.
It's really sad to watch such as what you insist on posting.
And it's not sad what you post, LTL? Opinions are free to give.....for both sides,whether you like it or not.
But your opinions really just revolve around one narrow subject. We know. Orange man bad. I would simply like to see you share other things. But, your posts display a single minded adherence to one narrow theme.
There is more to discuss than the bad orange man.
I in no way "attacked" Biden in answering LTL questions. I did not list negative baggage or insult his character. Not sure why you feel i made up anything? Could you give an example of what you feel I made up?
Why attack me without cause? I simply answered a few political questions. Gave an opinion. Trump had nothing to do with LTL's questions. Yet you enter him into this discussion.
I think, in this crisis, if it continues to degrade, they'll change their tune about Bernie. I see him as becoming the nominee.
If we look at history, Bernie would be next in line, and many people support him. As they did in 2016. However, that just did not matter then, and may not this time around either. It will be interesting to see what the DNC does.
Gosh, Sharlee, he is too old. I really doubt that he could be viable in 2024. He needs to groom and hand the mantle over to a younger protégée.
Let me clarify. I was referring to the 2020 election in case the DNC decides not to go with Biden. I am thinking of a "what if" scenario if they go with next in line if Joe drops out or is brokered out. Will they go with Bernie? he is the next in line and has a huge following. Sorry for the confusion.
The Democratic Party does NOT want Bernie Sanders to win the nomination; let alone the presidency because he's too much of a non establishment candidate, even more so than Trump claims he is.
They made that perfectly clear in my opinion during the last presidential election in 2016, so I doubt seriously the nomination would go to Bernie, even though it should. Most likely it'll be Elizabeth Warren, or they'll make up some excuse to give Hilary Clinton another shot at the presidency if Biden has to bow out. The point is it won't be Bernie Sanders.
I agree that Bernie is a non establishment candidate in many respects. You say more so than Trump, yet Bernie has been in politics his entire life, so in some respectshe isn't non establishment. Which is why I respect and fear him simultaneously.
I think the thing that bothers me about a more socialistic approach is we have no internal models where a socialistic approach has worked well in our society. If there was one city, one community, one state or one anything we could point to in order to say 'See, it is economically sustainable. It doesn't increase homelessness or crime, it doesn't create an unreasonable tax burden. People are healthy, happy, thriving and enjoying full freedoms.'
With one example I could breath a little easier with the idea of a Bernie presidency.
But that's just me. I think the DNC could care less about the people. Power, with no real vision, is their goal so Bernie doesn't for the model.
So, you guys are good with Biden as your nominee. Gotcha.
Maybe one day the democrats will put up a nominee an independent can vote for. Sadly, we have not reached that day.
How many times do I have to say I won't vote for Biden?
You voted for Trump, though, so we know where your standards lie, don't we? You have no business worrying about who might vote for Biden, unless you're just being another partisan hypocrite.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that a simple question would elicit nastiness, for no reason.
Par for the course.
Worried about nastiness? Get rid of Trump, a man who would punish states during a pandemic just because someone didn't properly stroke his fragile ego.
He is disgusting.
This is really funny. I'm just asking questions that have nothing to do with Trump. You are being driven by Trump. Always, every time you respond to anything I say.
Ever hear of Pavlov's experiments? We may be in one.
Well, you know, the guy is president and screwing up a crisis response and you're worried about Joe. My questions about your motives are legit. I notice you avoid addressing them.
My motives? None really. I think Bernie was the better choice. Because people voted for him because of his ideas. Not just because they wanted power, whatever the cost.
And now you've wasted your money.
I think if the crisis had hit sooner, Bernie would be the nominee. It still isn't decided yet, though.
And, yes, Bernie was the better choice, all this talk about "socialism" was just so much "rot" from the other side.
While most complain about the state of things, few are actually willing to step out and be counted with a man that had specific policy solutions. That is most unfortunate, who wants the current alternative to Trump to be just "warmed over Republicanism"? That is not exciting in the least.
I'm leery of Bernie but I'd have taken a hard look at Yang.
I think both parties are out of step with what we want and need.
Ditto, ditto and ditto Credence.
I am proud to be on team Bernie, and feel like I've been personally punched in the gut by the purposeful railroading of the scared Democratic Party Biden bandwagon.
Also disheartening are the false socialist comments made by both parties. I mean come on, just because Bernie said he supports education for all doesn't mean he supports or approves of Castro and his brutal regime.
If it comes down to the likliness of Biden as the democratic candidate, I will have no choice but to vote for him, however unfortunate.
Not me. Us.
How true, little lady. I really don't think that most people REALLY know what Socialism is. The "other side" likes to use the term whenever progressives attempt to get the more exploitive aspects of Capitalism under some sort of control.
Our adversaries know that America cannot become another Cuba or Venezuela, but will lie, exaggerate and do what ever is necessary to maintain the status quo.
I think it's probably unfair to complain about the socialist comments. Bernie has been steady on course all of his public life. He has always praised socialism and downplayed the dangers.
That's why I wish your party had looked harder at Yang. I think he's found the angle which would allow an unemotional conversation between those leaning left and those leaning right. The conversation on how to take a critical and dispassionate look at the worst of capitalism and find ways to maintain the good within it while addressing the bad.
I have no choice but to vote for Biden because I will not contribute to allowing Trump a second term, and that is job #1.
I appreciate that credence. I felt that way about Hillary, as you know.
But, at this juncture I see Biden as dead in the water. Do you think the DNC can do anything about that or are you stuck with what you've got?
Well, L to L, I was appalled at how much support Biden got in the primaries and caucuses. The way he stumbled through in the beginning, it was completely unexpected.
The Democratic Party is not what I have expected and I think that there is skullduggery a foot as to the Biden sweep in the face of so many better candidates.
But it is what it is, and like you I am resigned to the lesser of two evils.
I hope this crisis will cause the DNC to step back and regroup.
I'm not a fan of how the democrats allow the powers that be choose their candidates and sweep away any they see as a danger to their stranglehold on power within the party, but I'd like to see a reasonable alternative presented to the American people. However it's done in your party.
Someone you don't have to swallow the bile down to support.
How many gallons of bile did you have to swallow to vote for Trump? Your answer may give a bit of perspective to your views.
Got a good life, LTL. What's your problem? As has already been pointed out, you voted for a sexual predator, but you wonder why someone else would. Why did you?
Well, the alternative was a person who lied for and protected a sexual predator by attacking the victims. The alternative was a candidate who repeatedly lied to the American people, used the position she had within the government to enrich herself and her family, a person who used connections to avoid hard and pertinent questions about her conduct and a person who had some so long before the White House, going all of the way back to Arkansas.
You supported the same type (and worse in many ways) as what you complain about. Now you are defending another.
Who's the biggest hypocrite? I say you.
Randy. how about just discussing the subject. This should give you the chance to share your opinion on your own party, and how you think they should proceed, in regards to the 2020 election. I can go on all day why I will be voting for my candidate. Perhaps you could share, and tell us what you feel about your candidate or even who you think that should be.
Shar, did you not see the post I responded to from, LTL? She brought up swallowing bile in reference to people voting for Biden.
Then she became indignant when I asked her that question. Some can dish it out, but........
I saw it. I just hoped you would take the high ground, and share your feelings on what you feel the DNC should be doing at this point. I do realize they are backing Biden at this point. What are your feelings on that? Should they do differently or stand their ground with Biden.
I see your point, lots of hot feelings beginning to surface. maybe because we are all trapped in our homes, and really feeling vulnerable.
You people act as if Democrat voters have not voted for Biden. He is the frontrunner as of now. If he wins enough delegates he will be the nominee. Are you suggesting that the DNC overrule the people?
I, for one, wanted Elizabeth Warren but more people went for Biden and Bernie. It's still not ver. I haven't looked at the numbers to see if there could be a brokered convention, but that is the only way it will be anyone but Bden, to my knowledge, but I haven't really studied it lately.
All that said, this country has had a self-confessed sexual predator as a president for over three years now, so I really am at a loss as to why any Trump fan would consider that a disqualifier for Biden.
I did not ever express that I would disqualify Biden do to his past. He is innocent until proven guilty. Perhaps my comments have not been clear. I have tried to project to some(not you) that can look the other way and in regard to Biden's ALLEDGED sexual abuse, yet bring up Trump's ALLEDGED sexual abuses. It did seem hypocritical.
I did put forth the possibility of a brokered convention. The DNC could do this if they feel Biden could not win due to scandal or other reasons. I was just answering the questions posed on this thread. Giving a what if opinion. The questions promoted opinion-oriented answers. After all none of us know the future.
This thread seemed to be asking "what if's'. And to me provided a nice forum for Dems to converse over the front runner, Biden. I think it would have provided some insight into what Dems are thinking about not only Biden but a Brokered candidate. I made a point that I felt Cuomo might be a great candidate for the Dems. As a Trump supporter, I will say, he could give Trump a real fight.
I think if Biden wins enough delegates he should be the nominee. Period.
I am surprised, I thought you might opt for a brokered convention. Just saying that because you seem to be very set in your opinion on what kind of attributes a president should possess. No chance you would support a brokered convention... I figured you might be one that would buck the system. So, are you saying you believe at this point of just backing your party or are you supporting our current electoral system? Just being curious, don't feel obligated to answer if you prefer not to.
I found PTP questions interesting, and glad to see someone respond to the subject. I am very interested in hearing some opinions from Independents and Democrats.
I believe that if Democrat primary voters choose him as their nominee, in accordance with existing rules, that should be honored. I have strong opinions but that doesn't mean I want to unfairly force others to bend to them.
Interesting... OK So, using this same thought process do you respect that Trump won by these same rules? It well appears you respect the way we go about choosing a president. There are many that feel the existing rules should be changed. You certainly appear to have strong personal opinions, and yet you have what seems a conservative view when it comes to keeping rules in place. So, might I understand you may not vote for someone you find distasteful, but will not unfairly force others to bend to your beliefs due to existing rules
that dictate how we elect as president?
I am going to share --- I feel the existing rules have served us well the majority of the time. I have become jaded over the years when it comes to choosing a President. I have come to look past personality, and actually some poor morals. I have become more interested in the agenda they offer. So, if I felt Biden had a good agenda, he would get my vote. I would not vote a given party due to a candidate being nominated due to existing rules if I felt they had an unacceptable agenda.
I have never questioned the legitimacy of Trump's presidency . That doesn't mean I won't criticize his performance, his values, his words. It is my right, even my duty, as a citizen to judge the president. Why do you think criticism or disagreement amounts to attempting to bend others' wills to mine? That makes no sense to me.
You tell me anyone with half a brain can see what a great job Trump is doing. I don't interpret that as attempting to bend my will. It's just your opinion and you have a right to it.
Edit: I am not averse to changing the rules, but until that happens, we must abide by the ones we have.
" Why do you think criticism or disagreement amounts to attempting to bend others' wills to mine? That makes no sense to me."
I don't... I would hope my comment did not reflect that I was judging you or your right to offer your opinion of Trump. I was concentrating on the election rules, not in any respect did I want to leave the impression that I disrespected your right to express your views, your beliefs about anything.
I was appreciative you took the time to address my comment. about what your feelings are about our election laws.
Again I am stumped... I in no way have chastized you in regards to your criticizing the president. I do not think your criticism of the president is a way you use to bend others to your will. Could you point out in what part of my comment gave you that view?
I have no problem with your opinion at all. I don't think anyone here is trying to bend anyone's opinion. If "we" are we sure the hell may be going about it the wrong way.
Maybe the point of this Biden thread is that one group of people have made such an issue of how terrible Trump is because of these sexual charges, and so vehemently declare that such a man is not qualified to hold the office.
. . . and now they use the logic of whataboutism' to criticize anyone that thinks it even matters when the target of the discussion is their candidate.
Of course, that is just my thought, but it is how the thread seems to have progressed so far—to me.
That wasn't the point of the thread at all. Biden, even before the allegation had fallen flat on his face.
I'd love to see the democrats put someone up who could actually run a race.
I find your comments offensive. That you focused on one sentence in the entire OP says more about you than you might like.
"Biden, even before the allegation had fallen flat on his face."
Indeed, then why is he still leading the delegate count?
That's the freaking question Randy. Are you still behind a man destined to fail? Is the DNC? A lot can happen between now and November so nothing is written in stone. Are you happy with the status quo or would you support a move to get someone in who doesn't look so unelectable at the moment?
I dunno, it seems like if someone like Trump that no one took seriously can rise to the Presidency, anything is possible.
Ok. I bet there will be candy castles and unicorns at your convention.
Hold it. Stop right there. You can't improve on that so just savor it. ;-)
That's your opinion, LTL. Not mine nor others either. The best thing you can do is stick to your guy and don't try to understand the Left's decisions. Trump has problems of his own to overcome before November.
If I were you, I'd be looking around for someone on the Right to fill in for Trump, just in case....
Ok. It gets more and more curious. As an independent I'd like a choice. But if you guys are happy with what you're propping up then at last you're happy.
Have you asked Republicans if the RNC should be looking for a different candidate? After all, Trump has the same problemas as Biden, only tenfold. Just wondering.
Trump got elected once and his approval ratings are quite good right now. It isn't quite the same as Biden.
Honestly though most of you are really part of the old guard democrats. I guess I can understand where you are coming from.
I am not included in the "you" referred to here.
I have always thought Joe would be a poor choice to beat Trump.
For someone who claims she doesn't think Biden was the right choice you are doing a fantastic job running interference for him.
You guys have an opportunity to be honest and openly discuss your options but you choose instead to turn this thread into a conversation about Trump.
Honestly, I'm at a loss on what to think. You've spent the years rather much screaming that anyone who voted for Trump is....well, you've had so many snarky commentsabout Trump voters we won't waste the time to list them. You are supporting Biden here. If he becomes your nominee I guess we can hold you responsible for the outcome.
If you hold yourself to the same standard. We'll see.
Oh come on. You want me to say Biden is as bad as Trump. He isn't. In my opinion. (For you, GA.)
He also is not who I want for President of the United Stats.
No. This was not intended to devolve into a conversation about Trump. It was meant to understand what those on the left think of their options at this juncture.
Honestly, as much as I hated Hillary I cannot imagine that, had she won, I could ever have devolved into the behavior patterns we are witnessing from the left. And that is not because she isn't as bad. In my opinion she was 10 times worse and 100 times more dangerous.
"It isn't quite the same as Biden."
Actually, it's exactly the same except Biden's problems are fewer, he is more experienced and knowledgeable, he possesses compassion and humility, and he doesn't waste hours a day about his TV ratings or how so-and-so wasn't grateful enough to everything he did for them.
Exactly the same.
Given that this allegation of sexual assault just came out (to my knowledge), one cannot say that those who voted for Biden prior to these allegations emerging are okay with it.
Hair sniffing and invading personal space, which is all I was aware of prior to this, is not as serious as pussy grabbing and rape to most people.
Still, I don't want a president who does any of these things. We can do better.
GA, yes this thread as most ended up on a path that leads right into the " treacherous kingdom of Trump".
PTP's OP was clear, precise, and had nothing to do with Trump. Yes, she included the news of the latest Biden sexual allegation, it seemed relevant to the subject of the questions.
Are we too often reading between the lines, and end up on the same path? I think you named it " Whataboutism".
This is not the first time nor will it be the last, I'm sure, that GA appears to purposely misconstrue something I've said.
I'm used to it.
Help me out Live to Learn. I thought my comments tended to be in support of your OP, so tell me how I have misconstrued what you said.
I can honestly assure you that if I have misconstrued your comment it was not intentional. So after making such a statement as yours, (which I did take poorly), do me the courtesy of pointing out where I went astray. I really thought my comments were supportive.
I had to go back through the thread to find the comment I considered somewhat insulting. In fairness to you I also found quite a few comments I hadn't seen that were attempting to understand the frame of mind of the average Democrat on the Biden question.
But the only comment of yours I had noticed, at the time I made that comment, speculated that the point of the thread was on the sexual misconduct allegations.
Honestly, those are simply allegations. The inclusion of that statement was an afterthought and only inserted because it is just another possible rain cloud among the many threatening to douse the pitifully tiny campfire the DNC has built for any to rally around, for Biden.
The Biden problem is so huge, in my opinion, that I don't think we should waste time arguing over the inevitable #me too revelation every male politician running for any office will face. Guilty or not on that count, we'll never know.
The point is I felt that to turn the focus to that particular afterthought was a sure fire way to help any conversation more quickly devolve into the usual whataboutism; as evidenced by the concerted attempt to do that by the left at the beginning of the thread.
I want a viable candidate with a clear vision from the left. I want a choice we can actually think about. Not some doddering old fool we can only assume,at best, would be a figure head while faceless and nameless people who would never be held accountable ran the country; if there were enough ignorant people who voted to make this man president.
Thanks for taking a look. I remember that comment. I must have worded it terribly because it was intended to be supportive of your OP. I mentioned that you used "allegation" instead of charge as an intention to show that you were addressing topical issues—not personal condemnations.
I will try to be more clear in future comments.
I'm a progressive Democrat that came to this thread hoping to read opinions from both sides of the aisle on this topic; but instead, the comments have been overwhelmed by finger pointing and criticism. Thanks to ignorance, this entire thread can pretty much be summed up as moot.
Each and every person has from a unique background and set of circumstances that builds the foundation of their belief system, including political. This is just one of the many reasons political insults and bullying do nothing but reinforce the receiving party's political position, and prevents any hope of constructive bipartisan communication and understanding.
I think that you should stay, there have been many substantive comments that address the question put to us in the thread.
And this idea that the Democratic nominee needs to be some holier-than-thou, perfect candidate in the eyes of the right is laughable when they support someone as ridiculous as Donald J. Trump.
Whoever is nominated is better than a dishonest narcissist who is using the government to personally benefit while breaking multiple laws and governing for the benefit of less than half the country while throwing out childish nicknames at half of the rest.
Really? Even if your name calling and fibs were true, he would still be a better choice than Clinton. Or Bernie or Biden for that matter.
You're so in denial, you are laughable, old man. Your posts are just humor to me at this point because you have no concept of reality.
You really can't detect an opinion in making a choice between candidates? Really?
Actually, yes, but in light of a recent conversation with GA, I am attempting to be clear and ascertain clarity. Apparently, one must clearly identify one's opinions lest they be assumed to be statements of fact.
Now, now, PrettyPanther. Be nice. Do you really need to be shown the comments where an opinion was stated to be fact? Not inferred as fact, not worded as fact, (as in, left out the "I think" part), but actually called fact?
Surely you aren't saying such comments haven't appeared here in these forums?
I am saying that it doesn't matter if an opinion is stated as though it is a a fact. It is still an opinion and most people can discern the difference. How many times has a statement been met with "That's your opinion" or "I beg to differ." Both indicate a statement was viewed as an opinion, even if it wasn't overtly identified as such.
When LtL says Hillary would have been a far worse president than Trump, and fails to preface it with "I think"she is stating it as though it is a fact. But I believe we all recognize it as an opinion.
Anyway, this is all just my opinion. I can't really prove it, I suppose.
. . . and with this, I agree. So much so that I won't even mention, again, those 'other' instances.
We'll, I do think you have made a worthy point, inasmuch as it is at least a reminder that a strong opinion might be better received if it is prefaced with "I think."
I will try to remember that, but you know me....lol
Are you referring to claims of Trump's mental illness? If so, let me say this (I won't let you go that easily).
Any diagnosis of mental illness is, by definition, an opinion. Yes, there are tests for some of them but certain mental illnesses are actually more accurately diagnosed with observations of the subject's behavior in the real world. Clinicians often use reports of the subject's behavior from family members to help them narrow a diagnosis. Merely relying on self-reporting is a recipe for failure, especially with certain types of disorders involving feelings of grandeur, like NPD. Diagnosing mental illness is not as definitive as a blood test or throat culture.
So, if a multitude of licensed mental heal professionals all agree that Trump has NPD, I tend to believe their opinions are accurate, especially given the mounds of data available spanning the course of many years.
In fact, I will go so far to say that dismissing their conclusions outright, calling them "quacks" is irrational and way more dangerous than accepting them.
Just my learned opinion, of course. I have a degree in psychology, a brother with NPD, an ex with paranoid schizophrenia, and a mother who passed from Alzheimer's. I was the one who first noticed my mother's symptoms. I knew ny brother had NPD years before it was confirmed by a licensed medical professional, and I was the one who realized my ex was experiencing auditory hallucinations .
So, I don't know if this helps explain my confidence that Trump is mentally ill, but like you say, some of us have very strong opinions, and legitimate reasons for them.
As a degreed psychologist, would you consider watching the series of movies and TV shows about James T Kirk (Star Trek captain of the Enterprise) and then form your professional diagnosis of William Shatner's mental health from that experience? Would you go public with that diagnosis?
That's what your "mental health professionals" have done - watch the public antics of Trump, an ex-professional actor, and then base their diagnosis on those antics as he plays a part for public consumption.
Then, to aggravate their mis-deeds, they go public with a very private, personal diagnosis - something expressly forbidden by their code of ethics. Which is why I termed them "quacks" - not only did they make a diagnosis based on a faux public persona but then violated their oaths by making that diagnosis public.
As is your MO, you exaggerate and mischaracterize the details to suit your narrative.
I really see no point in responding beyond that.
No, there probably isn't a point. Either you're honest and say "No" or you will lie and say "Yes" - either way the point is made. So-called "professionals" that make a mental diagnosis from a faux public face, and then publish it, aren't professional at all.
You have invented a story to suit your position.I remember you once stating that Trump is the most honest politician because he says what he really thinks. Now, according to you, every interview, every speech, every video or tape is Trump's "public face."
Your credibility is totally gone. Unbelievable.
Well, that's fair - your statements seldom have any credibility with me either.
Is that why you don't believe that an ex-professional actor doesn't put on a persona for the public? Or just because it gives a lie to these "professional" psychologists that set aside their professional ethics to give a public denouncement of his mental health?
You have me at a disadvantage. I don't have any degrees or any knowledge that would give me confidence in an opinion. So I will that topic to Wilderness to argue.
But I will give you this; On this topic, I think his arguments are more technical than reality-based. If the assertion of fact were left out of the declaration I don't think he would argue so firmly against it. But then again, maybe he would *shrug
See his argument below. It's a bunch of exaggerations and misrepresentations.
Hmm . . . I guess it wouldn't help to ask which parts were misrepresentations. So I will leave it at Hmm . . .
So, you really think watching Star Trek as a way to evaluate Shatner is equivalent to using decades of interviews, video and audio of Trump?
If your main hope is to use the observations gained for politically biased motives I'd say yes.
Can you possibly believe that your "professionals" have examined "decades of interviews, video and audio of Trump", or did they pick and choose (assuming that they actually went back decades, which is extremely doubtful) what they wanted to see? They actually watched and evaluated every clip of Trump from decades ago, putting it all together for a comprehensive evaluation?
How gullible are you, anyway?
It appears you don't think the Shatner example is valid, but do you think the concept of the example is?
"fibs"? Are you afraid of being banned for bickering, Dan? I haven't heard lies called fibs since grammar school.
Matt, I hope you're watching. Dan accused someone of fibbing! Nah nah nah nah nah nah!
The guy who still thinks Trump has committed no crimes, despite all the proof that's out there, openly calling me a liar. I bet he'd buy his daughter a drink with Bill Cosby bartending.
*shrug* He's been accused of a whole raft of crimes, from collaborating with Putin to throw the election to blackmailing the Ukraine for the same reason to sex crimes. And has yet to be convicted of a single one. Did you lie (if you prefer that term) or were you just giving your unsupported opinion again, presenting it as factual?
Did I say he was convicted, or are you just twisting words to try and make yourself believe something since you know a sitting president cannot be charged under DOJ guidelines? I know it's the latter. I could lay out the supporting evidence of his crimes, but brainwashed sheep like you wouldn't believe it any way.
Speaking of which, why do you engage me? We are never going to see eye to eye on any issue. Do you like insulting people and being insulted back? Is that why you come here?
You claimed he was guilty, but without providing any court records indicating guilt.
This, then, is either opinion only (whether you think there is evidence or not) or a lie. Which was it?
I guess I like taking people to task for making statements they cannot support. And for presenting opinions as true fact. And, sometimes, for faulty reasoning.
On the other hand, you also said I think he's committed no crimes, again without any evidence of the sort (personally, I believe he has at a minimum skirted the line very closely and more likely than not has committed some crimes). Again, your statement was simply false and based on nothing but a desire to offend.
I did not claim he was guilty. If you're going to insist on something, at least be accurate. I claimed he broke laws. Laws which he cannot be put on trial for while he is president, but where ample evidence exists.
Again, you twisting words that I never used to try and make a case for something you clearly believe, despite ample evidence to the contrary. You can lie to yourself all you want, but don't come on here and accuse me of being a liar and expect me not to call you on that bullshit, Dan.
So, you just felt like insulting me by calling me a liar, even though you believe he has broken laws? So you did just want to come on here and be insulting. Got it. Do us both a favor and avoid me. I have no patience for you.
If he broke laws then he is guilty of a crime. Whether it was speeding 2 miles over the limit or colluding with Putin to fix the election he is guilty of a crime if he broke the law. That's pretty straightforward.
But you cannot prove he broke any laws, just make the claim and provide evidence (without rebuttal) that makes you think he is guilty. A court (the final judgement) has not made a decision.
So you then presented an opinion as fact, which is what I said.
I can prove it, but sycophants like you cannot come to a conclusion on the mountains of evidence because a sitting president cannot be indicted for those crimes. You need a trial to discern guilt, I can look at evidence and come to my own conclusion that he broke the law. If someone breaks a law, they go to trial.
Why did Trump shut down his foundation? Did he break a law by using monies for his campaign and personal benefit? That's been proven that he did. That broke a law and NY sued him to shutter the thing. I believe that proves he broke a law.
You say it's opinion, I say it's proven he broke laws by the evidence that exists in the same way I know OJ did it, I wouldn't have let Cosby serve me a drink before he went to trial, or how I wouldn't let small children into a shower with Jerry Sandusky.
And again, if you actually believed he broke some laws, as you claimed above, why did you call me a liar when I claimed that he did?
Sure you can. To your satisfaction.
You don't seem to get it. A cop may arrest you and allege you robbed that liquor store (that's the position you are in, alleging Trump committed a crime). And when a jury of your peers agrees that you did, indeed, rob that store the whole world then knows that you are guilty.
But until that jury renders it's verdict it is an allegation only, no matter how much evidence the cop can produce. Just as it matters not how much evidence you think you can produce of Trumps crimes - you may consider him guilty (just as the cop does) but no one else knows it. Not until the jury rules.
(We're not arguing over Trump's guilt, although you may believe we are. We arguing over whether you can declare him guilty without a court agreeing with you, and expect anyone to believe you, or whether all you have is an opinion.)
(You might go back and re-read my post, concerning my personal belief of Trump's guilt. That was another opinion of yours - that I believe him innocent of all criminal activity - and one that was factually wrong. Just as your opinion about Trump may be wrong. I edited it while you were replying to it)
Simple retort - Did Trump use foundation money for his personal benefit and on his campaign? Easy to research. Look it up.
Is that breaking a law? Two different ways, in fact. Should also be simple to discover. Was he found guilty or did he have to do something else to make up for illegal action, such as close his foundation and pay a fine - like when someone gets caught illegally breaking speeding laws?
Was Donald Trump found guilty? Or did he simply close up shop and move on (as businesses often do when court costs are more than they are worth)? You tell me - did he plead guilty, did a court find him guilty, or did he just agree to a fine and move on without any verdict?
Pretty sure you're aware this is a very common occurrence in business dealings...is that what happened? If there was a guilty plea, was Trump guilty or his business, a business being operated by someone else? There is a vast difference there as well.
Dan, Have you not noted that Val can take a word, as the word fib, and turn it into "he called me a Liar"... Why reply to someone that is obviously argumentive in every respect. Just look back on this thread and have a look at how he closes out his comments. The comments always end with personal insults. Why give him oxygen?
Ok, first I can see we are looking at the conversation between the two differently. This is where the context to why Dan used the word "fib".
Here is the first direct conversation the two had.
" wilderness profile image96wildernessposted 14 hours ago
And this idea that the Democratic nominee needs to be some holier-than-thou, perfect candidate in the eyes of the right is laughable when they support someone as ridiculous as Donald J. Trump.
Whoever is nominated is better than a dishonest narcissist who is using the government to personally benefit while breaking multiple laws and governing for the benefit of less than half the country while throwing out childish nicknames at half of the rest."
"Dan's reply --- Really? Even if your name-calling and fibs were true, he would still be a better choice than Clinton. Or Bernie or Biden for that matter"
It appears when Dan uses the word "fibs" he is referring to Vals. accusation in regard to the president. He feels them untrue.
"Whoever is nominated is better than a dishonest narcissist who is using the government to personally benefit while breaking multiple laws
and governing for the benefit of less than half the country"
Dan is pointing out Val's opinion is not verified with proof. Yes, many have the views that CVals accusations are true. But, in reality, there is no real proof other than the president giving people nicknames.
It boils down to the way one looks at the statement. I found the word fib mild in the context it was used in this case.
When you call me a liar, prepare to get insulted. I'm sorry that you cannot comprehend that fib is another word for a lie.
Id like to nominate my dog. He's confident, courageous and loyal and he hasn't met a human (or cat) he doesn't love. Best of all, he takes responsibility for his accidents with the proper humility. And he's only a puppy. Imagine what he would do in four years. Wally 2020!
The lawsuit against the Donald J. Trump Foundation was filed in June 2018 — charging the Foundation’s directors with ignoring their oversight duties under New York’s charity laws and demonstrating how Mr. Trump repeatedly used Foundation money for his own personal, business, and political interests, including the unlawful coordination with his 2016 presidential campaign. In the first half of 2016 — at the height of the Republican primaries — Mr. Trump used Foundation money, raised from the public, to demonstrate his purported generosity and attract votes. Mr. Trump and his campaign doled out $500,000 at a campaign rally in the days leading up to the first primary election in the nation, the Iowa caucuses, then took credit for all $2.8 million in grants the Foundation made.
In her decision ordering Mr. Trump to pay $2 million, Justice Saliann Scarpulla said, “…Mr. Trump breached his fiduciary duty to the Foundation and that waste occurred to the Foundation. Mr. Trump’s fiduciary duty breaches included allowing his campaign to orchestrate the Fundraiser, allowing his campaign, instead of the Foundation, to direct distribution of the Funds, and using the Fundraiser and distribution of the Funds to further Mr. Trump’s political campaign.”
What does 'unlawful' mean? Is that like when someone breaks a law? When a judge has to determine if you breached a fiduciary duty, were there laws they were applying or were they just making something up, do you think?
Does indeed seem that he violated a law, even though the judge noted that the money did end up where it belonged.
Now how about the rest of those multiple laws you claim he violated? Did you mean just two (that would technically be "multiple") or did you mean it as it sounded, that he has violated at least a dozen or so?
Maybe...isn't that kind of the bottom line we're hearing now with Biden? Personally, I wouldn't agree but then I'm not the one saying it doesn't matter what they did, I won't vote Trump. Because, don't ya know, ugly words are so much worse than ugly actions.
And we alll know Trump has never done an action as ugly as Hillary's horrifying server breach.
I'll stop now. I know you will always defend Trump no matter how vile the behavior. I just have to vent now and then. People are dying, more than necessary, you know, because he had it under control back in January, but those are just words. Hmm, I wonder if those words indicate action, or lack thereof? Oh, that's right. Hillary has murdered what, 91 people? 95? I lost count.
How is it that when someone doesn't agree with you on a totally different topic (whether Biden is fit for presidency, or whether it is reasonable to vote against Trump no matter what) you begin to claim defense of Trump? I don't have to defend him at all, and didn't, but here you are again, claiming I DID defend him.
How does that work? Is your mind so mired in it's hatred and TDS that everything automatically diverts to being about Trump and if others don't automatically follow along with that they are defending the man? Against something, anything, even when he isn't even mentioned? If the topic is cherry pie and I mention I prefer fresh cherries rather than pie, would it mean I'm defending Trump because I disagree with you?
You ignore everything horrid about that woman from as far back as when she was first lady of Arkansas.
Email, indeed. If that was the extent of the depravity, lies, laws flaunted you'd have a little bit of a point.
Say what you will. Hillary was among those who profited unfairly while the savings and loan crisis built up to the point many lost their homes. She's a snake.
Hey! There is no cause to degrade snakes. Some are very pretty and even friendly. And they dispose of the vermin rather than hire and support them.
Have a little care where your words go, LtL!
Seem? Jesus, you can't even admit when you're wrong about something.
Did I say multiple? Did I say a dozen? Again, putting words into other's people's mouths seems to be a specialty of yours so you can accuse them of being liars. Thanks for that apology by the way.
It is "seems" because I did not research it and your past posts are as biased against Trump as it is possible to be, filled with opinion disguised as fact, gross exaggerations and outright falsehoods. So, "seems".
"Whoever is nominated is better than a dishonest narcissist who is using the government to personally benefit while breaking multiple laws and governing for the benefit of less than half the country while throwing out childish nicknames at half of the rest."
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/347 … ost4129945
Yes, you said "multiple". Who is putting words where?
We could discuss the latter part of the claim as well, the "governing for the benefit of less than half the country" part, but somehow I think it would be futile. Tax refunds to nearly everyone, jobs for everyone that wants one, slowing the number of illegal border crossings, growing 401 plans...all of these kinds of things are only for the rich or they came from Obama. Not much reason to debate just who that "half" of the people is under those circumstances.
Oh, and I await your apology for the snark about putting words in people's mouths...
It appears I did say multiple, which I believe I already proved without having to go much further. But of which I could, as that first example took all of five seconds to find.
When did I say a dozen, by the way? I should have figured you can't admit to being wrong and being man enough to actually apologize for calling me a liar. It's a truly Trumpian quality you have there. No wonder you come on here to defend him so much.
My word, Valeant. Can't you see that if you show Trump was found to have violated a couple of laws, the bar will then be a dozen? And rightly so! Get a grip, man. This is serious stuff. At least we avoided having a real snake in office.
Biden knows the manual.
This is exactly what we were warned about before the election.
He wouldn’t (or couldn't now that we've seen his grammar skills) read the manual though; he knows everything better than the experts.
Now, when the airplane is losing altitude, he’s blaming everyone else, and still won’t let anyone near the controls.
You think Trump's incessant lying, bragging and bullying are merely his "public face" and you ask me how gullible I am?
Pardon me while I ROFLMAO!
Move over and give me some room on the floor as well, Sandy. Wonder what Trump's private face looks like?
Dan seems not to realize there are decades of Trump's personality to peruse if one desires to. There are audios of Trump acting as though he were someone else when he called into radio shows to brag on himself. He used the alias of John Baron, apparently where he got the name for his youngest child from.
As John Baron, he would brag on Donald's great intelligence, wealth, and fabulous business deals he'd made. Of course, John Baron is the same personae as Trump, and can't help from bragging on himself to the point of going way overboard.
And this is the person attempting to lead the free world. Moe help us all!
OMG, I had forgotten about John Baron.. There are so many awful and ridiculous facets to Trump, one can't remember all of them. To me, what is both shocking and maddening is that just one or two of these Trump qualities should be enough to indicate to most people that the man is not presidential material.
That's what I said about Hillary and now Biden. Yet you supported one and accept the other.
Yeah, well, history will eventually pass judgment on all of it and one of us will be on the right side, eh?
Edit: Just wondering, what does it mean to "accept" Biden? What an odd choice of words.
You'd prefer he not be the candidate, I think you've stated, but you support him for president, if that is the option the DNC is going to give you. Correct?
As to history. Perhaps it will deem one opinion right over the other but probably not. Definitely not for a very long time and then it will only be because the issues of this day are things of the past.
That's deep, Denise. I may just have to roll up my pants legs.
Geez, how many times do I have to say I will not vote for either Trump or Biden, even if he is the nominee. I will write in Elizabeth Warren.
I'll attempt to remember that. I suppose throwing your vote away on principal isn't all bad.
It's looking like I'll also be in the "principle isn't all bad" category as opposed to the "lesser of two evils" category.
I made a pact with myself awhile back that I will only cast votes for people I feel good about supporting. I am disappointed that it appears Biden will be the nominee. This is a strange year, though,and the primaries aren't over.
I think that's the way to go. Ultimately, we are the ones that have to sleep with our choices at night. I can't support Trump or Biden without sacrificing my own values, so I won't vote for either. I'm disappointed with the way things are looking too, but as you said, it is a strange year. Things are far from over yet and I'm hanging in the fight until the end.
It's better than swallowing that nasty bile. I've seen what it does to people and it isn't pretty.
Yeh. Those who voted for Hillary definitely appear to still have sour stomachs from that.
Weren't you the one who first mentioned "swallowing bile, Denise? I know, you're too intelligent to answer any questions from me.
Sure, but not because of their Hillary votes....
As someone who voted a write-in in 2016, I agree, acting on principle isn't a bad thing. Some folks might even think holding to your principles against a storm could be seen as a good thing.
I disagree. Mainly because you aren't holding on to your principles. Not really. Why bother to vote if there is no chance your write in will win?
But, I voted Trump mainly because I knew the damage Hillary could do and realized I needed to do all that I could to keep get from winning. If both choices were equally bad in your eyes I can see why you would go that route. Personally, I'd have saved myself the trip and the wait in line.
I understand the argument and used to agree with it. Trump has shown me just how damaging it is to a person's soul to suspend their human decency to vote for someone they don't truly respect. Once done, as is human nature, the desire to justify the action causes all sorts of twisted rationalizations and weird denials. I guess it's hard to admit the reality of what such a choice has created.
Lol. Your twisted view of and lack of respect for opposing views is well documented so that post is redundant.
I love how certain Trumpers interpret disagreement as lack of respect.
Oh, wait, that's what Trump does.
Don't even try to argue that the insults you've lobbed my way are better described as a different view point.
We've traded barbs frequently but that is why I try to steer clear of exchanging comments with you.
Sadly, if I didn't interpret so much venom in your comments directed at me, I think we would find we have more in common than you think.
I have noticed that you, Shar, and wilderness interpret direct descriptions of Trump:s behavior, and your support/tolerance/defense of it, as insulting. Like when I say you are fine with sexual predators, since you voted for a guy who bragged about being one. You say it's an insult, but it is, in fact, what each of you did. That is what I mean about damaging your soul. If you were truly comfortable.with your support of Trump you would not be insulted by a true description of what you voted for.
That is what you think is "not respecting your views." If I were truly lobbing insults as often as you accuse me of, I would have been banned by now.
Anyway, I respect everyone's right to have a different point of view, but do not respect every view. Do you respect every view possessed by, say, a Nazi? I cannot respect a man who brags about being a sexual predator, nor can I respect the view that he is of acceptable character to lead this country. It is one thing to ignore unproven allegations that are denied by the accused. It is quite another to support a man who freely admits to being a predator.
If you make disparaging comments about Trump and I say 'how dare you insult me!!' I'd agree. But show me where I've done that? You can't because I haven't taken insults or comments about Trump personally. Why should i? I'm not him and he's not me.
Forget it. You choose to be willfully blind. And that is certainly your right and prerogative.
Willfully blind to what? Enlighten me. I'm trying to speak genuinely here. I have a point if view as well and you just told me I am "willfully blind." is that different from the lobbing of insults you have accused me of? But, let's just treat it as your point if view and I hope you will tell me how I am willfully blind? What am I intentionally ignoring?
We've actually had this conversation already. It didn't end well. But, yes. Calling you willfully blind is insulting. So, apologies.
"Like when I say you are fine with sexual predators, since you voted for a guy who bragged about being one."
If that is not an insult then this is not HubPages. First, my feelings on sexual predators have nothing to do with Trump or my vote in the last election. Second, you are making a statement that you do not know to be true, only that you interpret the action as sexual predation. As you also claim that everything he says is a lie you cannot even know it ever happened.
So yes, there is no other real way to interpret your statement other than an intentional insult. Certainly there cannot be actual, factual truth in your opinion that a vote for Trump means acceptance of sexual predation.
Thank you fr proving that what I said is true.
Edit. "As you also claim that everything he says is a lie you cannot even know it ever happened."
I have never claimed that everything he says is a lie. Why do you have to exaggerate?
You said he must be ok with sexual predators. That is an insult lobbed directly at him. I know I said calling you willfully blind could be construed as just an attempt to insult but I'd be insulting your intelligence if I thought otherwise on this one.
Willfully blind to what?
If a guy brags about intentionally walking in on teenage girls who are in varying stages of undress, including naked, is he a sexual predator?
Let me ask you a counter question. Hillary attempted to demonize the women Bill assaulted. Does your support for Hillary during the last presidential election mean you think women who are abused and sexually assaulted should be shamed and treated like tramps?
If not, why should we believe you don't? You did support Hillary.
Is that a yes or a no to Sandy's question, Denise? Or is it too ignorant a query for you to give a concise answer to?
Well, since I am unaware of what you are referring to when you say "demonize," I can't answer that. So, if you will clarify, I will at least know if it were something I was fully aware of when I voted for her.
After you clarify, I will answer your question, IF you will please tell what I am willfully blind to. I believe that is the third or fourth time I've asked.
A. I'm not doing your research for you. I say she did it. I came to a conclusion as to what her actions meant. I say you accept them so you must be just as dirty.
That's what you do. That's what I'm doing.
B. I've already explained what you are willfully blind to. Not my problem if you can't follow a simple explanation.
Wow, I actually tried to converse with you.
Anyone out there who can show me where she told me what I'm willfully blind to? Anyone?
No....and obviously she can't either, Sandy. She doesn't like questions......believe me, I've tried.
I'm genuinely trying to understand what she means.
I dunno. Maybe it's the times we're in? But I see it isn't easy. I knew that, but I was trying anyway.
Maybe we are better off debating or discussing issues with each other. At least the discussion will be civil, rational and intelligent.
I propose that you, as a liberal, should recognize a certain amount of value in Republican philosophy as a result of dealing with these people.
Republican philosophy includes a key principle that we are not all created equal, although we have equal rights. Some people are simply more capable than others.
Do we really want some of the people on here to have the same say in everything in America when they are so f---ed up?
Yes, most definitely. It's been awhile since I said it but I miss the old Republican party. I used to say I preferred that a Democrat president be tempered by a Republican Congress and vice versa, but that was when the GOP was just a more conservative group of people who valued education, science, and truth.
Where did they all go?
oh gawdddd . . . do you read what you type? Are you really that egotistical?
I tried promise. I have passed-up several of your comments without jumping in. But . . .
"We," them," "some of the people," same say," Holy Cow! No wonder we always butt heads.
promisem, I will skip my normal efforts of polite discussion and diplomacy—you are full of egotistical stuff.
Get your feet back on the ground. You ain't what you think you are.
Of course, you should only respond to fellow choir members, ("Maybe we are better off debating or discussing issues with each other"). Anyone else will point out the fallacies of your statements.
Please feel free not to respond. I fully expect a ban as it is. I don't want to guarantee one by replying to whatever effort you might make here.
Everyone that doesn't agree with you is " so f---ed up' Oh lordy, lordy, . . .
I have come to realize it's just a game. You can't fix people who are so badly damaged.
So we play with their moral and intellectual flaws just for the fun of it.
Yes, sometimes I'm playing, but that is not the case this time.
"So we play with their moral and intellectual flaws just for the fun of it."
Wow, and yet you wonder why we have such confrontational exchanges.
It's just a game? Then maybe you should practice a little harder. 'cause you sure as hell ain't scoring any points.
Thank you. You saved me from getting banned once more... I think this is one of the most ridiculous rude, crazy, all-out Hey I am the king of groupthink... Comments.
Why in the heck did you not use your iconic words? "I am so glad I am not you". "They" have fun. --- I am so laughing I might, well you know what.
Does this mean you don't like people playing with your moral and intellectual flaws, Gus?
I could be wrong but I don't think Scott was referring to himself when he wrote that.
Really, here is his full statement Context matters.
PROMISEM -"I have come to realize it's just a game. You can't fix people who are so badly damaged.
So we play with their moral and intellectual flaws just for the fun of it."
THEN THERE WAS THIS GEM ---
PROMISEM "Do we really want some of the people on here to have the same say in everything in America when they are so f---ed up?"
PP You consider this him talking about himself?
I know for one I am over-responding to many that post here. Te negative moral BS is ridiculous. Talk about moral and ntellectual flaws.
I don't know, Shar, is it really so shocking to you that many people view a vote for Trump as a vote in violation of basic human values? And why are you insulted by that? Heck, I was living with my boyfriend back in the 70s and plenty of people judged me as amoral. So what? Everyone judges people. Some people think I'm going to go to hell because I'm an atheist. I couldn't care less. Go ahead and judge my choices. I expect you to for goodness' sake.
No, it is not shocking to find many have a strong feeling about Trump and his supporters. I am not insulted by other views until they assume my motives for a given discussion, in this case. Why I voted for a presidential candidate. Then to further make a blunt statement PTP, Shar and Wilderness. " are fine with a sexual predator". You have no idea what I feel about sexual predators. I don't feel you have the right to openly make a statement that I approve of sexual abuse. Not sure how more clear I can be. That is insulting.
In this comment, you give an example of what some labeled you for living with your boyfriend. How do I say this? Did you have your reasons for living with your boyfriend? Was there several variables that helped you decide to live with your boyfriend? I would guess, yes.
Would have you been pissed if someone just said, "Hey, PP loves sex, that's the reason she moved in with him... "
Perhaps sex had nothing to do with your decision. But, some felt they could assign your reasoning, and not even consider all the variables that you considered before cohabitating with your boyfriend.
So, do you think using my analogy that anyone had the right to assign one reason why you moved in with your BF? Would you be somewhat insulted by how they disrespected all your other variables and just assigned the reason they wanted to your situation, and then had the nerve to insult you due to the one variable they wanted to use to apply judgment to your character?
I voted for Trump due to several variables. I weighed the variables. We had two candidates that let's say had baggage. I was not willing to not vote. I feel it is very important to vote.
Yes, everyone makes judgments. I feel that is innate in human beings.
" Some people think I'm going to go to hell because I'm an atheist. I couldn't care less. Go ahead and judge my choices. I expect you to for goodness' sake."
This is where we disagree. You have placed an opinion that I will judge you. I don't have enough information to judge why you are an atheist. I have no variables to make a judgment. So, I certainly would not even think of insulting you over being an atheist. Plus, I have no right to tell you what to believe. Do you see what I mean?
I see where you are coming from. I do, I have friends that have similar personalities. I respect them, and their views. I don't appreciate it if they insult me without cause just due to their strong views. I have views too. My views feel as important to me as theirs do to them.
Sadly, I have read where others have attempted to help you understand. You choose to pretend it's over your head.
I'll leave you all to pretend you are justified in whatever this bs game is you are playing.
SMH. It would be so easy to simply answer the question.
"So we play with their moral and intellectual flaws just for the fun of it."
Hate, this statement reeks of hate. So inappropriate. One that would make such a statement for literally no reason at all just might be apt to be showing moral ineptness or perhaps just lacking the intellect to keep his inappropriate comments to himself.
I've been thinking and I have to accept all of this back and forth between us resolves nothing. I've answered your question with an attempt to show you the hypocrisy of the claim.
I'll leave it at that and offer you the same sentiment I offered promisem in another thread when he went off on a vehement illogical tangent.
I wish you well and hope you feel better soon.
And, as usual, this ends with you backing out with your nose in the air. I feel great, but I'm certainly willing to feel even better. Have a nice day.:-)
Does that mean that what he says that you can twist into evil is true and anything he says that you can't make into evil is false?
Because it surely takes a massive spin to turn a denial that Trump has anything to do with my feelings on sexual predation into a conclusion that it does is beyond the pale.
Simple, pure insult. Nothing more, nothing less.
All I said is you voted for a man who admitted to assaulting women. By doing so, you indicate you are okay with having a sexual predator as president .
Unless you do not think an adult male intentionally walking in on underage girls, hoping to catch them undressed,is a sexual predator. If that is the case,you might want to learn more about the subject. In any case, whether or not you define that behavior as sexual predation, the behavior did occur. It has been corroborated.
That's almost correct: you stated " Like when I say you are fine with sexual predators, since you voted for a guy who bragged about being one." Paraphrasing: "if you voted for Trump then you are fine with sexual predators". A simple insult since there is exactly zero truth in the statement.
Now it gets worse: "Unless you do not think an adult male intentionally walking in on underage girls, hoping to catch them undressed,is a sexual predator." This, of course, can include doctors and others; are they sexual predators, too?
Ignoring your unsupported and almost certainly false allegation that you read his mind and know he wanted to catch them naked, you have nothing to go on. I had a young girl run through the dressing room of the YMCA the other day completely naked; I giggled at the sight and sound of that little nude cherub running for the toilet, feet pitter pattering across the wet floor. Does that make me a predator?
No it did not occur...unless you care to remove your unsupported and lying allegation that he wanted to see them naked. Not all males drool at the thought of a young, naked girl - can you prove that Trump does? Are the female reports demanding entrance to NFL dressing rooms sexual predators? But, of course, Trump is...because you require him to be evil.
Same-o same-o, Pretty. Take something almost certainly to be innocent and spin it into evil. I believe I mentioned that propensity in your words about Trump.
Finally, and before you accuse me of it - I'm not defending his actions. I'm taking YOU to task for saying things you cannot know to be true; that are made out of imagination because you need something to bash Trump with so badly with you don't care if it's true or not.
Not sure why you have made an attempt to bring me into your conversation.
Here are your words "I have noticed that you, Shar, and wilderness interpret direct descriptions of Trump:s behavior, and your support/tolerance/defense of it, as insulting".
First, you seek to make an assumption that PTP, wilderness and I interpret direct descriptions of Trump:s behavior, and you support/tolerance/defense of it, as insulting. You're assuming, not giving any incidents of any examples for which you speak. You simply make a statement that makes little sense.
You then proceed to say ---
"Like when I say you are fine with sexual predators, since you voted for a guy who bragged about being one. You say it's an insult, but it is, in fact, what each of you did.
It is inconceivable that PTP ever said: "I am fine with sexual predators".
You simply made a false insulting statement. You made an inappropriate judgment. You insulted her, flat out. You may have taken something she said and twisted it to meet what you needed to hear. You also made a vague attempt to bring me into the equation and insult me for the same what you think to be a crime, who I voted for. You made an inference that all three of us defended Trump, for any and all he has ever done. Your thought process is limited, you clearly do not respect anyone's view you disagree with. You appear to read whatever you please into other words and twist them into anything that you wish them to mean. You often, as you did hear try to involve others, lump individuals into a group.
You use vague labels, in the hopes of insulting others. At the end of your comments, you attempt to give self-importance to your opinion. As you did here. Often using the word "I"... "Nor can I" These are your very words.
" I cannot respect a man who brags about being a sexual predator, nor can I respect the view that he is of acceptable character to lead this country. It is one thing to ignore unproven allegations that are denied by the accused. It is quite another to support a man who freely admits to being a predator.
You are Willfully blind to your treatment of others. Your negativity is palpable.
Okay. I wish you were as concerned about how the POTUS treats people as you are about little old me.
That's actually the basic point, isn't it? Trump bragged about grabbing women by the pussy, and there are multiple women who say he did just that. Yet, you voted for him anyway. I guess you didn't care as much about those women as you do about feeling insulted now?
In any case, I'm done.
We were not discussing the President. We were discussing your habit of insulting people. The point is you twisting PTP words stating she said
"I am fine with sexual predators".".
You are clearly in a frenzy, trying to change the subject. You asked
PTP or anyone to answer why you "willfully blind". I gave you an answer.
Do you know how foolish you sound? You make the assumption you are privy to why I voted for Trump. I don't feel insulted, I pointed out you insult others frequently without cause.
You claimed the other day you would support Biden if he won the primary, you do know he forcibly held down a woman and stuck his fingers in her vagina. And then told her to get lost. You're a nobody". You claimed you would not even support a brokered convention. So, if I twisted your words into "I am fine with sexual predators". Does that statement mean the same as what you couvade? The fact you would support the voice the vote of the people to run Biden?
You have no insight into what I feel about anything Trump may have done or was accused of doing. You have no right to even make such a statement, just as I would never have used the Biden incident to insult you. It's not my place to judge you. I read your statement the other day and found no reason to insult you for your decision.
I have tried to get to know you, thinking we may have something other than politics in common. Thought we could at best be decent to one another. It always comes back to being a toxic conversation.
Yes, I voted for him. I take voting very seriously. I had to pick, I always vote agenda. I have always said both candidates had baggage, one had a better agenda. Simple as that. And you ask if I felt sorry, bad for the women that claimed Trump was sexually inappropriate yes, I felt very bad for them, I felt the same for the woman Bill Clinton sexually abused.
But, I felt not bad but sick, discussed how Hillary treated those women.
I could not in any respect see our first woman president be her... I voted, for someone with a good agenda. That's all she wrote. In 2020 will be voting on an agenda, and now job performance.
I assume you won't be voting due to your standards.
For the, I don't know, fifth (?) time, if Biden is the Democrat candidate, I will write in Warren.
The rest, I acknowledge I read it.
Really, Oh what an honorable thing to do... Yet you admitted you would not support a brokered convention to perhaps get a more suitable candidate. Go figure.
Would trying to change the rules to suit me be the honorable thing to do? You're not making sense.
To vote for someone you know has no chance of winning shows little honor in my book. I have followed your comments, you give the impression you are very honorable, very moral. What I would consider honorable would be to perhaps condone a brokered convention of hopefully a candidate that you could see yourself voting for. I had posed that question to you a bit back. Would you support a brokered convention rather than support Biden. Due to your apparent disdain for men that sexually abused women. You answered if Biden got the won the delicate count you would not approve of a brokered convention.
This made no sense to me at the time, it still does not. You clearly have made your feeling clear about Pu--y grabbing Trump, and I would have assumed you would not support or vote for Biden. You said you would not. Yet you would not support bouncing him and replacing him with a perhaps more moral candidate. Seems you are willing to sit back and let a pervert run for president instead of even agreeing that a brokered convention might be needed.
Who you vote for or support is your business. The decision sometimes is not clear cut, there are several variables that can come into making the decision. As you said your decision would be to do a write-in. You could have chosen to vote for Biden or perhaps supported a brokered candidate. For your own reasons, you made your choice. It makes sense to you. I would not even think of insulting you on your decision or try to talk you out of your decision. It's not my place. I would not make an attempt to drowned you with my moral attitude.
The comment you responded to was meant to be sarcastic. I was openly judging you, as you do me, and PTP, and others.
I think the debate is good, healthy, but when it turns to into an argument, disrespecting one another because we just can't respect one another's views it seems futile.
I will not vote for Biden or Trump. If the rules allow for a brokered convention, fine. I am not that knowledgeable about how it works, but I would not support an attempt to negate the vote of the people unless it is fully legal.
I've said all this before, just like I've said several times I would vote for any Democratic candidate who won the nomination except for Bden or Bloomberg.
So you think I didn't hold onto my principles. And you use the logic of your comment to support that . . . Geesh.
Why bother to vote? How many reasons do you want?
That you would sit home rather than exercising your civic responsibility—all because your choice won't win, certainly indicates, (to me), that arguing principles may not be your best choice.
You spoke before of me "misconstruing" your comments. In this case, I don't think I have misconstrued your words, and hopefully, you won't misunderstand the message of mine.
You won't vote for either candidate on the ticket. Not voting at all on that particular contest is the same as writing someone in. Either course makes the same statement. You don't want either candidate.
I'm not saying you can't write someone in and I'm not saying I'd sit at home because my candidate can't win. But your write in isn't a candidate with any chance of success. It's just one of those moments we all have where we think we are making a bold statement on something and the truth is we are just a little too impressed with ourselves.
We certainly have different perspectives on our voting responsibility and privilege, (I see it as a privilege to have that Right, many in this world don't have it).
Also, I don't agree that "staying at home" makes the same statement. Apathy isn't an effort, and to make a statement requires effort.
As for being impressed . . . I don't feel impressive when I hold to a principle—I feel proud.
Sitting it out doesn't make a statement? I see it as the same statement. To me, the same principle is upheld. So you don't, in my mind, gain brownie points choosing one over the other. You are falsely elevating your own position as to what constitutes standing on principle above another's.
However, I will grant that you can't just not go because the presidential election is only one of the things on the ballot. You do have to vote on the other races and propositions.
I know, it's like an episode of The Twilight Zone for real!
How about this one . . .
. . . as long as we are ROFLMAO!
by Denise 3 years ago
Does anyone else find this whole defense of creepy Joe by the activists weird as heck?I mean, seriously. He's being accused of groping women. We have video footage, we have eye witness testimony, we have a pattern of behavior, we have a fumbling progression of attempts by Biden to respond. But...
by Jack Lee 2 years ago
There is a lot of new information that came out recently....October surprise.Some of it was old news but some new revelations about the Biden family...with his son Hunter and his laptop and emails...All very troubling if true.Here is the $64K question.Do you trust Joe Biden enough to be President?...
by Ralph Schwartz 4 years ago
Today is the first day of confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice nominee, Brett Kavanaugh - and it's already a wild and crazy ride. At this early point in the hearing, reports are that 17 people have been removed for disrupting the proceedings, several Democrats forcibly interrupted...
by Credence2 2 years ago
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-20 … ting-storyPlease watch the video and tell me what it is that Trump is talking about?
by PrettyPanther 3 years ago
Number one reason: He is problematic because he is not a strong enough contrast from Donald Trump. Joe has a history of gaffes his entire political career. Combine that tendency to say the wrong thing with his advancing age, and you have a problem. Joe is already showing why...
by Stevennix2001 2 years ago
Before anyone else opens up a forum about this, and I know the debate is still going on. Who do you think won this year's final presidential debate of this year?
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|