the "Bizarre Debate"

[bonnie]

35 minutes ago, lazarus said:

Sounds like you're a trump supporter.

I don't even know if I am voting. If I don't it will be the first time in over 40 years that I haven't.Unlike some of you here I can't convince myself of Clintons honesty and integrity. Since I first became aware of Trump my impression was pretty much the same. He hasn't done anything to convince me I am wrong. The major difference I see is Hillary is a far smoother and more practiced liar politically.

[lazarus]

5 minutes ago, bonnie said:

I don't even know if I am voting. If I don't it will be the first time in over 40 years that I haven't.Unlike some of you here I can't convince myself of Clintons honesty and integrity. Since I first became aware of Trump my impression was pretty much the same. He hasn't done anything to convince me I am wrong. The major difference I see is Hillary is a far smoother and more practiced liar politically.

 You're putting a lot of energy into defending someone you're not going to vote for. 

[bonnie]

40 minutes ago, lazarus said:

Sounds like you're a trump supporter.

I don't even know if I am voting. If I don't it will be the first time in over 40 years that I haven't.Unlike some of you here I can't convince myself of Clintons honesty and integrity. Since I first became aware of Trump my impression was pretty much the same. He hasn't done anything to convince me I am wrong. The major difference I see is Hillary is a far smoother and more practiced liar politically.

[bonnie]

Please show me where I have defended him.  Expecting you or others to hold Clinton to the same standard as Trump seems to be defending Trump as far as you are concerned. Tell me by the bar that has been set the proof you have personally of Trump's guilt. Which of the accusations do you personally know to be true.what is your personal knowledge of Clinton's innocence. What makes her accuser's liars and Trump accuser's honest?Neither has been found guilty in a court of law.

[bonnie]

I do give Hillary higher marks for being a more convincing liar. All you have to watch her two interviews concerning her sexual predator husband. Both interviewers along with most of the nation knew she was lying but she did it so perfectly and flawlessly people just went Awww.Her expertise in lying doesnt white wash or make Trumps any less dishonest

[lazarus]

1 hour ago, bonnie said:

Please show me where I have defended him. 

Clear evidence that you are a Trump supporter/defender. Denying the obvious.

[GayatfootofCross]

Here is just one heartbreaking story ...

among so many.

 

[bonnie]

2 hours ago, lazarus said:

Sounds like you're a trump supporter.

No answer,please show me where. Do I trust him to always tell the truth? No  Do I agree with his crude and rude behavior? No Do I believe many of the reports of accusations against him,Yes. Can I prove it. No. That was the bar that was set if you recall.

Do I think he should release his tax returns Yes. At this point it isn't a big issue  as I can't imagine that it would do anything to change my mind regardless of how it reads. Would I read it,probably out of curiosity and just on general principals he absolutely should. If I do decide to vote it would be Trump and that is based on only two issues. Whether or not he would carry thru is another question. There isn't a single issue that I could vote for Hillary on.

Two liars,two people that abuse their power and influence, and both are pretty convincingly accused of dishonest business practices. So then I have to decide if the two issues I agree with Trump on could in anyway justify voting for him,but if not him I don't vote and I believe we should.

Now tell me again where I have supported Trump.

[bonnie]

While I believe that the story you posted is probably true explain to me why the following story on Clinton should be dismissed as a lie. Can you verify all aspects  and both sides of the story you posted?  I can't.

To some of you that is defending Trump. To me it is wondering why only one is guilty. Demonizing Trump doesn't make Hillary any better. Defending her doesn't make Trump more guilty. Both have unsavory reputations. Hillary is a little smoother at her pretense and Trump blusters and brags his way,but there is very little difference between the two and even less to recommend either for the position they are campaigning for

Dolly Kyle has written a scathing “tell all” book exposing the sickening hidden truth about Bill and Hillary Clinton. Hillary’s war on just about anyone who is beneath her, or who would dare to get in the way of her ascent to the White House. When will the media do their job and report the truth about this horrible opportunist?

Dolly Kyle – who was just 11 when she first crossed paths with Bill, dated him through high school and began sleeping with him once they graduated – published the claims about the Clinton couple’s racial epithets and politics in her new book, Hillary: The Other Woman, published by WND Books.

She writes of one occasion, when developmentally challenged children were having difficulty picking up the eggs at a traditional Easter egg hunt on the grounds of the governor’s mansion during Bill’s tenure in the Arkansas state house.

Reluctant hostess Hillary had enough.

‘The frustrated Me-First Lady demanded, “When are they going to get those f*****g ree-tards out of here?”‘ Dolly writes.

 

Of course the Clintons dispute this just as they did Gennifer Flowers,Paula Jones and Juanita Broderick and Monica

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tom Wetmore]

15 hours ago, lazarus said:

Sounds like you're a trump supporter.

Precisely...  Those who most vigorously push the idea that both are bad seem more apt to question reports even well documented and verifiable reports, of his badness,  and offer no doubt about every allegation raised, even with no or very sketchy evidence despite, millions spent fruitlessly on investigations, and even a lot of stuff thrown against the wall by any inmate of the asylum.  Double standard. 

...claiming to not like Trump and claiming to struggling with whether to vote for him or not, while defending him at every turn.  The contradiction is painfully obvious.   

On the other side, no attempt to defend Hillary, about anything confirms the approach that one will defend those they favor and never rise to defend those they do not like.

[bonnie]

21 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Precisely...  Those who most vigorously push the idea that both are bad seem more apt to question reports even well documented and verifiable reports, of his badness,  and offer no doubt about every allegation raised, even with no or very sketchy evidence despite, millions spent fruitlessly on investigations, and even a lot of stuff thrown against the wall by any inmate of the asylum.  Double standard. 

Perhaps as an inmate of the Clinton asylum you should give up your room. There is little reason to question Trump's badness and very few do so. They do not cover Trump's behavior with a pretense that he is this honorable truthful public servant that has been victimized for decades.

21 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

...claiming to not like Trump and claiming to struggling with whether to vote for him or not, while defending him at every turn.  The contradiction is painfully obvious.  

 

What is painfully obvious is that you place yourself in a position to call others a liar. I have not defended Trump. It is really hard for some to believe there are those that cannot comprehend that their valuable opinion is not valued as they think it should be valued. As tough as it is for you to accept that you could be wrong, I do not know if I am going to vote. If I do it will not be Clinton,which leaves Trump. In your unfailing wisdom of knowing all that means I am pretending.  Your "wisdom" falls far short of infallible.

On the other side, no attempt to defend Hillary, about anything confirms the approach that one will defend those they favor and never rise to defend those they do not like.

As you feel free to question my honesty ,I consider your defense of Hillary Clinton to be dishonest and "pretending as well" Just a way to white wash your support of her.  Everyone has lied over decades about this poor woman,she is honest and trustworthy so deserves my vote.

You set the bar,she has not been convicted so therefore no problem.He is not guilty Trump hasn't been convicted but a major problem. Both should have been but only one is guilty. and amazed that this is what we have to choose from

If your defense of Clinton wasn't so adamant and the criticism of Trump just as adamant for same type of UNPROVEN accusations it wouldn't be a double standard.

One more time,will I even vote? I don't know at this point. As disgusted as I am with both I probably won't decide until time to vote.

In your  infallible,non-judgemental divine wisdom you can call that a lie,which pretending is,as much as you wish.

Maybe some are as impressed with your wisdom and knowledge as you are.

[Tom Wetmore]

Misrepresenting and twisting my statements... Really not worth dissecting for any response...  Personalizing too much, really!  Not all about you.  

There is such a thing of relevancy and weighing the evidence... 

It reall is deeper than simply not questioning Trump's badness. iIt seems obvious that in the Trump supporter world, no matter how serious, immoral, bad, corrupt,  it just does not matter.  Truly bad is seen as good.  His worst characteristics are reframed as strengths and virtues.  Even his lack of qualification, public service experience, just strengthens his credibility as the champion outsider who will supposedly change everything.  In that regard, what is good is seen as bad. 

And this is not what is happening with regard to Hillary.  In fact, just the opposite.  All it takes is a hiccup, or a cough, literally, and suddenly she is too unwell and old and weak to be president.   Any flaw, no matter insignificant is added into the equation against her.  And even her strengths, qualities, and valid and clearly positive experience and achievements are viewed negatively.  For her bad is really bad, and good is even worse.  

 

[bonnie]

It reall is deeper than simply not questioning Trump's badness. iIt seems obvious that in the Trump supporter worleimatter how serious, immoral, bad, corrupt,  it just does not matter.  Truly bad is seen as good.  His worst characteristics are reframed as strengths and virtues.  Even his lack of qualification, public service experience, just strengthens his credibility as the champion outsider who will supposedly change everything.  In that regard, what is good is seen as bad. 

As one you have labeled a Trump supporter... this is entirely false.

For those living in the Clinton asylum Hillary Clinton is a paragon of virtue that has been tormented for decades by liars.

The video that Gay posted is a perfect example of the Clinton asylum boarders. Lacking any rational explanation I do believe it. Dealing with contractors most of our married life I know first hand how common and despicable it it.

The story of Clinton and her disgust over special needs children is dismissed or being shoved under the rug.

I believe that as well. Both Clintons have a record of calling the women Clinton abused liars, Gennifer Flowers  was lying,Paula Jones was trailer trash,Juanita Broderick was lying,Monica lewinski was lying and Dolly Kyle has been called a liar. Now unless you are a Clinton asylum boarder what would convince you that Clinton is innocent and Dolly Kyle is lying? We have a couple of special needs children in our family and I take more offense that as a mother that is how she feels.

Both blame everyone else for the perception that so many in the country have of them.

I am sure that there are those that have convinced themselves of the sterling character of Trump just as you have of Clinton. Most haven't done that and I know it hasn't been done here.

Regardless of gender a liar is a liar.

 

 

[bonnie]

For every despicable disgusting issue concerning one you can find a similar in the other.  You see only despicable disgusting acts by one and a innocent victim that has been smeared for decades.

[Tom Wetmore]

We can endlessly exchange "not true" to what each other says endlessly.  But to what end?  You may think I am wrong, or whatever.  Based on what I really can't figure out.  Because I know I have the facts and evidence on my side. I just don't post things unless I am sure of the facts.  If I am uncertain, I will either say so, or will not post it. 

But I do judge the sources you routinely post, and can only assume, you believe them and rely on them, since you do post them.  Many of them lack any credibility.  Not as you apparently must determine, but on objective and sometime overwhelming evidence.  So when you keep repeating stuff you seem to have dredged from those sources, I can't help but be skeptical.

[bonnie]

10 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

We can endlessly exchange "not true" to what each other says endlessly.  But to what end?  You may think I am wrong, or whatever.  Based on what I really can't figure out.  Because I know I have the facts and evidence on my side. I just don't post things unless I am sure of the facts.  If I am uncertain, I will either say so, or will not post it. 

But I do judge the sources you routinely post, and can only assume, you believe them and rely on them, since you do post them.  Many of them lack any credibility.  Not as you apparently must determine, but on objective and sometime overwhelming evidence.  So when you keep repeating stuff you seem to have dredged from those sources, I can't help but be skeptical.

Of course it is impossible to figure out why others believe you to be wrong. That has been understood for sometime.

I have believed little of what Hillary Clinton has said since the first interview I watched with her. She perfected her lies to an art form and did so again. People that are basically honest are not equiped to lie so convincingly  in the face of those that absolutely know she is lying. You believe she only lies as she is this poor little wife standing by her man.  Champion of women's rights sets out to destroy those that would dare reveal her husband's behavior. I don't buy it or that the excuse it was a private affair and not the countries business. It became the countries business and she continued to lie and then perfect the lies.

[bonnie]

Trump was a private citizen during any of his dishonest dealings. It isn't a stretch to believe that will follow him in the White House. We KNOW that dishonesty followed the Clintons to the White House.

[bonnie]

The righteous indignation over   Alicia Machado  and Trump is another example.  Trump was way out of line with some pretty crude remarks that should never have been said.It was a long time ago but that doesn't change what he said. The story is not quite as portrayed by some in the media but does not negate the behavior of Trump.Liberal media seems to be all over it championing this woman and how she felt.

Can we soon expect the same media to interview the women Hillary Clinton abused and lied about on behalf of her husband? Will they be reporting how these women felt with Hillary's behavior?

For some reason the righteous indignation is reserved for Trump,which is well deserved. Why does Hillary Clinton get a pass. If they don't give these previous actions equal time they are also boarders of the Clinton asylum. If Trump disgusts me for his behavior then the behavior of Clinton should as well

[GayatfootofCross]

God is good!

[Tom Wetmore]

Part of the false equivalency problem is the tendency or perceived need to give equal coverage by assuming that if a negative thing is reported about one candidate that to be fair a negative story must also be reported about the other. And conversely for every positive point reported about one candidate must also matched with positive about the other.   

The end result is if there really is a substantial difference in the negative or positive attributes it really does leave the false perception that the comparison of the two candidates is so much closer, that they are not so different.  The same idea if equal time is give to a trivial story  about one as given a truly substantive story about the other.  It makes the two stories seem of equal importance, or relevance.  Perspective, comparability is lost. And a whole lot that should be reported never gets coverage.  It really is no wonder that there tends to be a skewed perception of the candidates.

Regarding the debate, for those who watched the whole thing clear through, the negatives about Trump's performance far exceed the negatives in of Clinton's performance, and the positives for Clinton's performance were greater than Trump's. The amount of substantive comments actually informatively addressing the issues was also very lopsided to Clinton's favor.  If the commentary coverage spent equal time for each category for each candidate,  or focused on a silly example of a category for one ( like Trump's stuffy nose or Clinton's shoulder shimmy)  in comparison to much more serious examples of  the other, the impression is left for those that didn't watch it all that it was much closer or that Trump did OK and Clinton didn't.  

If things are not equal, that should be clearly reflected in the coverage to give an accurate picture of the comparison.  

[bonnie]

58 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Part of the false equivalency problem is the tendency or perceived need to give equal coverage by assuming that if a negative thing is reported about one candidate that to be fair a negative story must also be reported about the other. And conversely for every positive point reported about one candidate must also matched with positive about the other.   

The end result is if there really is a substantial difference in the negative or positive attributes it really does leave the false perception that the comparison of the two candidates is so much closer, that they are not so different.  The same idea if equal time is give to a trivial story  about one as given a truly substantive story about the other.  It makes the two stories seem of equal importance, or relevance.  Perspective, comparability is lost. And a whole lot that should be reported never gets coverage.  It really is no wonder that there tends to be a skewed perception of the candidates.

 

Clinton brought up a negative story about Trump to influence voters as to his horrible treatment of women. I know it means little to you but many people are not like you. If they are going to base a negative attitude against one candidate for a unsubstantiated rumor then it is not unfair or uncalled for to take a honest look at the candidate slinging the mud. Most don't consider Clinton's treatment of women trivial. Hard to understand anyone claiming to be a feminist does

I haven't read it all but it appears that there is far more to the story than Clinton's version. If I look at her treatment of women she comes up as short as she accuses Trump of being.  Why should I object to the behavior of one and give the other a pass for very similar behavior. She was the one that brought up something that happened or supposedly happened 20 years ago and we shouldn't be comparing her behavior?

I understand that you don't question her honesty but most that are not living in the Clinton asylum do as well as Trump's.

I did a quick check and didn't find where any of Trump's staff or employee's asked for immunity or took the fifth. Didn't find it for him either in various articles. Yet Honest Hillary's staff needs immunity and the fifth. To you so what. To those you consider less bright than you are it raises questions. Why?  I just read a headline on my home page and haven't followed thru yet but it claimed James Comey has also asked for immunity in another investigation. He has a very cozy relationship with Clinton.

 

 

 

 

 

 

58 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Regarding the debate, for those who watched the whole thing clear through, the negatives about Trump's performance far exceed the negatives in of Clinton's performance, and the positives for Clinton's performance were greater than Trump's. The amount of substantive comments actually informatively addressing the issues was also very lopsided to Clinton's favor.  If the commentary coverage spent equal time for each category for each candidate,  or focused on a silly example of a category for one ( like Trump's stuffy nose or Clinton's shoulder shimmy)  in comparison to much more serious examples of  the other, the impression is left for those that didn't watch it all that it was much closer or that Trump did OK and Clinton didn't.  

If things are not equal, that should be clearly reflected in the coverage to give an accurate picture of the comparison.  

 

[Tom Wetmore]

Quote

15 hours ago, bonnie said:

I did a quick check and didn't find where any of Trump's staff or employee's asked for immunity or took the fifth. Didn't find it for him either in various articles.

 

Maybe take a little more time and check a few other sources...  Here is just one case for Trump himself - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-pleading-the-fifth_us_57ed79dee4b024a52d2de46d 

To very similar effect, there are numerous reports of Trump "losing" his memory of this while in deposition testimony by answering "I don't recall" or "I don't remember".  A significant number of his lawsuits end up with a settlement with a confidentiality clause that effectively muzzles anyone who might  try to speak about the case later. And I have it on very good authority that his standard MO is to threaten anyone who might speak against him or his empire.  First hand witness that his team has written explicit "instructions" to any firm/company that currently does business with him or his empire that if they speak out about him or his business interests/practices, they are finished, will be fired, business relationship will be terminated, etc.

I would expect that the NY Times will be sued for publishing the copies of the 3 pages from his 1995 tax returns.  

[bonnie]

10 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Maybe take a little more time and check a few other sources...  Here is just one case for Trump himself - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-pleading-the-fifth_us_57ed79dee4b024a52d2de46d 

I did not see that but really. That is about his private life and really no one's business is it. To lie about infidelity is seen by some as a virtue. Maybe he was protecting the woman involved:))

10 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

.  A significant number of his lawsuits end up with a settlement with a confidentiality clause that effectively muzzles anyone who might  try to speak about the case later. And I have it on very good authority that his standard MO is to threaten anyone who might speak against him or his empire.  First hand witness that his team has written explicit "instructions" to any firm/company that currently does business with him or his empire that if they speak out about him or his business interests/practices, they are finished, will be fired, business relationship will be terminated, etc.

I would expect that the NY Times will be sued for publishing the copies of the 3 pages from his 1995 tax returns.  

You have a problem with confidentiality clauses ? I know several that have had those after a settlement involving abuse with the SDA denomination. Is there something wrong or incriminating about that? 

If that is true and there isn't any proof,far better than dead isn't it