Major Earthquake Strikes Trump Campaign

[lazarus]

26 minutes ago, bonnie said:

Your implication that I have somehow rationalized this is a complete fabrication on your part. 

Ok. 

[bonnie]

Selective ethics?

Gloria Elldred,that staunch defender of women"s right's agrees that altho  she could not condone Hillary Clinton's treatment of women she still supported her because Hillary backed abortion.Mistreatment of women becomes acceptable as long as they are on the same page concerning abortion

[bonnie]

I don't believe anyone that supported keeping Clinton in the whitehouse to the point of re-election gives two hoots about despicable moral conduct. 

Nor is this moral outrage over treatment of women anymore believable when Hillary Clinton,the master of lies ,denials and abuse of the women coming forward has never been condemned but rather seen as a "valiant effort" by the poor little wife to save her marriage.

 

 

[bonnie]

Another poster seemed to think comments by some not wanting Trump around their daughters was important.

This is only one from a democrat concerning the same type of comments concerning Clinton.Seems that was not nearly as important.Claire McCaskill, who doesn’t want Bill Clinton near her daughter, angry at Rand Paul for insulting Bill Clinton. In fairness she did apologize. She didn't deny saying it or feeling that way,but only that it was unnecessary and hurtful and didn't need to be said.

Probably a smart move to make if the Clintons end up in the white house again with the power of the presidency behind them.

 

I wouldn't want either Bill Clinton or Donald Trump around my granddaughters. Nor would I want my granddaughters around the tender mercies of an abusive woman that would do whatever it took to protect her sexual predator husband. A very real possibility with wandering Bill roaming the halls of the whitehouse again

[bonnie]

AWWWW   What a champion of women's rights. Hypocrisy much?

 

Hillary to Sexual Assault Victims: "You Have The Right To Be Heard, You Have The Right To Be Believed"

 

896 Shares

Posted on September 14, 2015

 

 

 

 

At a press conference held Monday in Cedar Falls, Iowa, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton addressed sexual assault on campus and how women should to respond to an attack.


"Today I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault," Clinton said. "Don't let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed and we're with you."

"There is a big divide between survivors who do not want to seek the criminal justice system for different reasons and those who want to but are not sure that it would be responsive," Clinton said today. "So we need to do a much better job on the fairness of the response so that people feel like whichever route they go on campus or off they're going to be taken seriously, that doesn't mean that, you know, that there's no process. There has to be one."

Clinton said women should immediately be believed, starting a process to "determination as to what if anything should be done about the claim that was made."

"I think that when someone makes the claim, they come forward, they should be believed and that is what starts the process and then there is a determination as to what if anything should be done about the claim that was made," Clinton said.

Clinton also said there needs to be an "increased prevention effort" to fend off future sexual predators.

 

Wonder what Hillary and Bill have done towards this . So thankful this champion of women's rights will never have to opportunity to enforce their brand of "increased prevention effort" with my granddaughters

"We have to do an increased prevention effort," Clinton said. "This has to start much earlier. We are in a real difficult environment with cultural pressures that are on young people, women and men to do more to combat."

[Gregory Matthews]

  When Bonnie said Gloria Eldred, I believe she meant Gloria Allred. who is presently the judge on the TV show The People Court.

However, do not dismiss her for that role.

She is best known for her work in litigation as a feminist attorney and staunch defender of feminist positions.

 

 

[bonnie]

True feminist   A woman that abuses other women is supported because she backs abortion. Abuse is only a minus

When questioned about digging into female accusers' pasts, Allred described the behavior as victim-blaming.

"Most people are not nuns, and most people aren't Girl Scouts," Allred told the New York Times. "That doesn't mean they're not telling the truth."

 

But after being told Hillary supported hiring a man to dredge up dirt on female accusers, Allred had to defend her preferred candidate.

"If Hillary signed off on a private investigator, let's call it a minus," Allred said. "It wouldn't change my support for her because there are so many pluses for her, like her stance on abortion.

[bonnie]

 "Moral outrage" is understandable, and I can support that until the line is crossed where someone tries to apply their own standard to me, or to other people.The first thing wrong with this whole thread is that people on all 5 sides are quoting "news" articles and sources as "credible evidence" for whatever side of the fence they are sitting on, and thats just plain unreliable. The news is almost always not the news. It is largely propaganda which none of us can validate. Its hard to know who to vote for in many countries today, but that doesnt mean that we give up and surrender ourselves to selectively believe what we want to from the news papers and start throwing it around as "the real truth."

 

A question is not where anyone is trying to apply their own standard to you or anyone else.  Nor is it even a question as to who is worse.

It is a given that both Bill Clinton and Trump are guilty of some pretty despicable words or behavior. It is also a given that Hillary Clinton behaved in a pretty horrific manner towards those coming forward. 

This really is not about any of them. It is a question as to the reaction and moral outrage,not the acts itself, over the vulgar words of  some and the vulgar actions of another.

I don't like or would not tolerate a man talking as Trump did and dismiss it as a private conversation that does not reflect on the real Donald Trump. I would not tolerate a man that violated the trust placed in him as president with his little games with cigars and then lied as Clinton did.

I do not believe any woman that claims to defend women and be concerned for abuse suffered by them while heaping abuse on women themselves.

I hold all three in contempt. Most here hold one in contempt for a disgusting vulgar,contemptible conversation. Yet  disgusting vulgar,contemptible actions are not so much.

I do not believe it is the disgusting behavior that bothers so many,or the same disgusting behavior of anyone aspiring to public office . If it is dislike and distrust of Trump that  is fine and all are entitled to their personal opinion,but why the hypocrisy? Is it because against all odds Trump was looking like a real shot to defeat Hillary? Is this all a deflection of what so many see as Hillary's questionable activities that now suddenly they are all in a dither over spoken sexual deviancy?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GayatfootofCross]

33 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

When I voted, I did not use news articles as a reference point to decide on who should get my vote. I looked at information that showed actual accomplishments of each candidate, as well as what each candidate was proposing to do for us.

 YES! ..and stories of people who worked with and worked under for them

I am people oriented that way.

 

TESTIMONIES!

 

[bonnie]

I detested what Bill and Hillary Clinton did. I have zero respect for Bill Clinton as a man,husband,father,president.

Same for Hillary,I have no respect for her as  a woman,wife and mother or the potential leader of this country.

I don't have any respect for Trump as a man,husband or father.

If and that is a hypothetical If,I were to vote for Trump I would have to set aside my feelings of disgust and contempt for Bill and Hillary Clinton in order to in anyway condone,absolve or accept Trump's behavior as just his private life and none of my business. As I can't do that I have to make hold the same view of all three.

If I were to vote for Hillary Clinton I have to condone,absolve or accept her behavior involving her vulgar husband and the trashing of the women that came forward. Then by extension Trump's vulgar behavior wouldn't be  important to me as after all it was his private life as it was the Clintons. I don't believe I can have it both ways.

I can say none of it matters and vote for the one whose claimed policies I agree with> I can't do that as I believe these two candidates have shown exactly who they are and that is the character and integrity they would bring into the whitehouse. So my choice is to not vote for either as I cannot absolve one of behavior I abhore and accept it in the other,regardless of what they promise on the campaign trail

[bonnie]

 

On 10/9/2016 at 4:38 PM, The Wanderer said:

One does not have to "accept" all aspects of a candidates behavior in order to vote for them. And again. So much of our "knowledge" is based on news so called. The news is not evidence based reasoning.

I agree. If I were to decide to vote for one of these candidates it would be in spite of the character and integrity they have shown. Not because the lack of integrity is irrelevant concerning one and a election shaping issue for the other.

Quote

 

Acceptance of wrong behavior is not always how it is when we vote.

Agreed,however here on this forum "we christians" have made it very clear that is not true for those that disagree with them.

A vote for Trump means you are a racist,Muslim hating,woman hating,closet bully. Closet bully was a term used on my facebook by a C/A member which I removed.It is beyond belief that those who will vote for Trump could do so in spite of his obvious flaws. Those that supported Bill Clinton and re-elected him did so considering his very obvious actions irrelevant as a sitting president. They supported a lying,manipulative abusive spouse,Just the "little woman trying to save her marriage". Their choice. "After all haven't we all sinned". And this was a private affair none of the nations business.

Now these same people are undone and appalled at the conversation in private,not the actions.Condemning those that would support Trump as they overlook his  boorish behavior.

I find it interesting that some of those so vocal about "Do not judge" do not assume' do so whenever it convenient.

They support or dismiss boorish behavior when convenient,yet are very free with their accusations concerning my supposed support for Trump.

I don't believe anyone that supported Clinton,re-elected him and excused his abusive wife cares two hoots about the boorish behavior of Trump. Does sound very moral and righteous tho. The dislike of sexually deviant and abusive behavior cannot be based on only certain individuals. For some of us that dislike and have a lack of respect for this behavior it is the same whether the name is Clinton,Trump,Jones or whoever.  It is the pick and choose by "we christians" that I have questioned.

Some will vote Trump  without acceptance of wrong behavior .It would be nice if "we Christians" would take that into account when so strongly condemn those that support Trump or those that they claim do

 

The dislike Trump period.   I will be the first to admit he is  unlikable most of the time. He has all the charm and finesse of a bulldozer moving a child's sand pile.

If I were forced to choose who I would deal with on a personal level it would be Trump. Sadly there are some women that respond to that but most women would see his intent a mile away. He certainly doesn't know the meaning of subtle. Bill or Hillary Clinton OTOH can be charming and very manipulative as well as cunning. Their intent and ability to harm does not broadcast itself.

Just the question. Not who you like better,not what flaws you are willing to accept in the candidate of your choice,not whose promised policies you prefer,but why are despicable "words and actions okay sometime,just a private affair and not okay for all concerned?  

Edited October 11, 2016 by Tom Wetmore
Too much shouting with screaming red font...

[Bravus]

What you may be missing is that the 'moral outrage' is not 'bacause sex', it is 'because treating women like objects', which is something Trump already has considerable form in relation to.

[bonnie]

41 minutes ago, David Geelan said:

What you may be missing is that the 'moral outrage' is not 'bacause sex', it is 'because treating women like objects', which is something Trump already has considerable form in relation to.

And do you believe Bill Clinton did not? What was Monica to him except a handy foolish young woman? His very public lies about "that woman" must have made her feel very special and valued. Someone he valued and respected? Was the sexual assault on Paula Jones done out of respect and caring for her? What value did he place on Paula Jones except believing once he could get her in the room she would be delighted to have sex with him?    As a woman how did Hillary view the victims of her predator husband? Having any value? Respecting the right of a woman to not be sexually harrassed or coreced? Or as Monica was called,a narcissitic loony toon as a sign of respect?

[bonnie]

5 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

You need to start a separate topic about Clinton as evident by the content of your posts here and of the OP. This was started in good faith about a specific subject and a specific person. As evidenced by your posts no one can say a word about Trump if they dont say the same about Clinton I am sure you will end up having the last word in this topic.

This really is not a question to Gregory , it is just in general and Gregory prefers not to answer me in public. And please leave your opinion as to this means support for Trump out of it at least for now. The comparisons are for asking why this moral hand wringing now,not who is most guilty. You  can make what you will of the following but before you attack accusing me of supporting Trump answer my question if you can.

What has caused so many to discover the moral high ground and express so much righteous indignation. The report is disgusting in the extreme . It is truly amazing for those that are going to vote these two candidates are the only choice they really have for president. But my question isn't about either of them or their behavior past or present.

It is the sudden discovery of the moral outrage over disgusting behavior rather than the behavior of any hopeful candidate.

 

I asked a fairly simple question in the beginning,one which has been answered by turning it back on me to avoid answering.

Why exhibit so much moral outrage over the disgusting behavior of a hopeful candidate  as a private citizen when the same disgusting behavior was dismissed as no one's business concerning others guilty of the same type of disgusting behavior holding public office including the highest office in the land. 

Is it the vulgar behavior you and others really care about or is that a handy tool because you hate or dislike Trump? If I find that disgusting and that decides my vote then I would have found Clinton"s behavior disgusting and never voted to re-elect him or keep him on as president. So many here gave Clinton a pass,it wasn't nice but not anyone's business.It wasn't a one time "slip" he has been preying on women for decades.

Why isn't Trump's behavior "no one's business"? . Linda Tripp paid a very high price for revealing tapes of  private conversations. Just about "sex after all". Will those responsible for providing tapes of this "just about sex"  private conversation pay a price as well? If not,why not?

When does the moral compass kick in? Not as support for either,or as a condemnation of either,but for you as well as others  that think the outrage over this type of vulgar behavior is justified at this time when it has been noticeably lacking at other times for it is "just about sex"

What makes this particular behavior something that cannot be accepted today when it was so easily accepted by the same people before.

I asked a specific question about a specific subject and a specific person and no answer

What causes the moral outrage concerning Trump when it was lacking before over this behavior.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

[Shaking my head.]

I am uncertain as to why my name has been taken in vain.

Yes, I do limit my comments, both as to subject and as to people.

I have neither the time nor the emotional energy to comment on everything.  In addition, there are often people who say it better than I would say it.  On some  subjects I simply have little to no interest.

Have a good day, Bonnie.

 

 

 

[bonnie]

I didn't watch the debate last night with the exception of about 15 minutes.  On my home page this morning there is a few headlines referring to it. Double standard much.

Again what is right and justified towards one candidate is vicious towards another.

I didn't see the initial question but I turned it on when Hillary was expressing her deep concern over the tape and saying this man does not deserve to be president.  Made several comments about how appalling it was.

This from a woman that was facing her husband's victims in the audience,those she attempted to discredit to keep such a man in office at all costs. Maybe Anderson Cooper called her on it but didn't watch long enough to know. Why is one a perfectly legitimate statement and the other same type of statement vicious

[bonnie]

11 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

[Shaking my head.]

I am uncertain as to why my name has been taken in vain.

Yes, I do limit my comments, both as to subject and as to people.

I have neither the time nor the emotional energy to comment on everything.  In addition, there are often people who say it better than I would say it.  On some  subjects I simply have little to no interest.

Have a good day, Bonnie.

 

 

 

Your name wasn't taken in vain. I responded to comments you made and did not want you to think that I was addressing you because of the comment you made previously

[Gregory Matthews]

Yes, I went back to the OP and see what was involved.

When I responded, I had forgotten [Perhaps as my advanced age my memory is slipping.] that context and I was responding to the post above.

 

Regardless, have a good day, all reading this.

 

[GayatfootofCross]

Obama had to be PRISTINE in conduct and words to be Prez! Trump can be FILTHY!

[bonnie]

35 minutes ago, GayatfootofCross said:

Obama had to be PRISTINE in conduct and words to be Prez! Trump can be FILTHY!

This doesn't have a single thing to do with the Obama presidency NOTHING.

It isn't even about the former president,or the two candidates currently running.

It is the about the attitude towards vulgar disgusting comments ,vulgar disgusting actions,lies and trashing those coming forward about that behavior. 

When can a candidate be filthy and fit for the presidency  and when can't he or she be fit for the presidency.?

[lazarus]

24 minutes ago, GayatfootofCross said:

Obama had to be PRISTINE in conduct and words to be Prez! Trump can be FILTHY!

You are right. Can you imagine if Obama had been a fraction as nasty as Trump? I'm not really as much appalled by Trump but by his "Christian" supporters.

[bonnie]

You said...

How can anyone be fit for public office when at the end of the "apology" he dismisses the whole thing with "well at least I wasnt as bad as so and so."  Where is the remorse or accountability in that?

 

Those that actively support Trump or will vote for Trump as the only alternative have the same questions concerning Hillary Clinton? They have been referred to as nominal christians,supporting racism and more

 

 

Even last night,not just years ago,Hillary Clinton is still lying and in her position that is still abusing the woman that came forward concerning her husband. Trump brought that up along with the same women being  in the audience . Being called liars by extension. Paula Jones included. Trump was accused of lying.  Whatever you may think of Trump's wife or her reasons for doing so she was a class act in her short and simple remarks concerning her husband. Hillary could have taken a clue from her and answered in the same manner. Instead she is still absolving the predator husband while publically calling the "victims" along with Trump a liar. She as a candidate has never shown remorse or accountability for her numerous lies to the american people or to the women she trashed. Whan and for whom is it important to do so?

[bonnie]

32 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Bonnie...the reason I am responding the way I am over your question in the beginning is because what your question suggest is happening actually is not happening. I believe you are misreading some people here and charging them with somthing they are not guilty of

 Some saying they would not want Trump around their daughters was worthy of being posted as a reason to be opposed to Trump.

There were those that made that statement concerning President Clinton . Clinton was re-elected,Trump is unfit to be elected. Explain the rational behind that thinking

[bonnie]

You said....One does not have to "accept" all aspects of a candidates behavior in order to vote for them. And again. So much of our "knowledge" is based on news so called. The news is not evidence based reasoning.

 

I agree with that,however that is not the general viewpoint. Calling those that would vote for Trump nominal christians,guilty of racism etc is counter to that statement. The above has been said by those participating in this discussion.

[bonnie]

I asked a question as to when vulgar disgusting words and behavior causes this moral outrage? Are the outraged always outraged by this behavior to the point we are at now and when should disqualify someone from being president?