Major Earthquake Strikes Trump Campaign

[bonnie]

I can't make this any clearer to you and if you or others choose to take it as defense of Trump  so be it.

It isn't Trump or Clinton,it is the double standard when so many decide vulgar speech or behavior disqualifies a person for the presidency.

When this concerned actions of a sitting president,in the White House it wasn't the nation's business,the press was lambasted for publishing ,Linda Tripp really took a hit for taping and providing publically what so many decided was a private sexual act.  Didn't have anything to do with his ability as president. Paula Jones and sexual assault in a successful lawsuit was really nothing to get to excited about. Lying to the american people and congress  was seen as understandable. Not abuse of Monica Lewinsky.

We were advised to think carefully about a alleged,could be,she said "We don't know if true but based on past history... story made public about Trump and a known pedophile. Nothing about thinking carefully about placing a known predator that traveled and "socialized" with  same known pedophile back in the WhiteHouse  unrestricted by official title.Or a woman that has protected him by lying past and currently to protect that behavior. Numerous recorded trips to the "sex island' devoted to young girls with the known pedophile doesn't seem to be something to consider carefullu

Someone says they would not trust Trump around their daughter. Important enough to bring up but not important enough to bring up same remarks made concerning a sitting president,or the woman that protects his behavior and dismisses the accusations and victims as lies.

Voters that are faced with the same dilemna concerning Clinton and will vote for her in spite of,Not a problem

Voters faced with the same dilemna concerning Trump and will vote for him in spite of are nominal christians,racists and a long list of other sins. How does this work?

When should a person be disqualified or removed from the presidency? When is moral outrage called for?

[Bravus]

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

You might want to re-read. What I *actually* said was that saying "I have daughters" is a *terrible* reason for opposing Trump, because it implies that if you didn't have daughters and it was only other people's daughters he was groping that would be OK. I said that *as a human being* who regards everyone's right to not be assaulted as a given I oppose Trump when he advocates and admits to sexual assault.

And yes, *if* Bill Clinton was guilty of the same thing, my judgement on that would be identical. I'm not convinced he was. There have been tens of millions of dollars spent trying to prove he was with no success.

[bonnie]

You said..... Oh, and by the way, lots of people are saying "As a father of daughters I'm appalled by Trump's comments". The heck with that: as a human being I'm appalled. 

You are correct in saying that the statement stated appalled instead. Were you and others "appalled" that others claimed they would not want Clinton around their daughters?  It was for similar reasons. One for appalling words,one for appalling behavior with Monica. I would not be very happy to hear either comment concerning my husband or sons.

 

And yes, *if* Bill Clinton was guilty of the same thing, my judgement on that would be identical. I'm not convinced he was. There have been tens of millions of dollars spent trying to prove he was with no success.

So who is Monica Lewinsky? While I don't hold her entirely blameless,the responsibility belongs to a sitting president that used his office and power with a young woman young enough to be his daughter for sex games in the White House. Then lied more than once ,lied to the american people  and was impeached for obstruction of justice. Never publically apologized to her for the way he used her for his deviant sex games or branding her a liar so publically. She became "That woman",she didn't even rate being called by her name.

He lied about Gennifer Flowers,altho that was consensual,the lies about a woman he was using  sexually are the same. He eventually admitted it.

Paula Jones was believed by most people. He did settle the lawsuit with her. There were some cracks made here about Trump settling other type of lawsuits demanding confidentiality and not admitting guilt. Clinton settled the lawsuit claiming confidentiality and not admitting guilt.  Do those that have a problem with the wording of Trump's settlement have the same problem with the wording of the Paula Jones settlement?

Hillary Clinton again lied last night in the debate. Clinton's reputation for sexual misconduct was known since his time as governor thru the White House years. When Trump brought this up at the debate she told him he was lying. His accuser's that are credible to most people are just ignored and were in the audience, being abused again and branded liars by extension.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bonnie]

I do appreciate the fact that you can answer even if you believe Clinton may be innocent in accusations,testimony and lawsuit

[bonnie]

Fact-Check: Yes, Bill Clinton Was Disbarred and Fined After Impeachment

 

 

 

 

 

During the second presidential debate, Republican nominee Donald Trump said that Bill Clinton was impeached, disbarred, and fined as a result of the Lewinsky scandal.

Fact-Check: TRUE

Bill Clinton was indeed impeached for lying under oath to a grand jury and obstructing justice, although he was not removed from office.

After impeachment, Bill Clinton was held in contempt of court by federal Judge Susan Webber Wright, in what the New York Times described as a “scathing” ruling. Wright said Clinton testified falsely in his deposition about not having sex with Monica Lewinsky, and that his actions “subverted the rule of law and violated Ms. Jones’s right to information relevant to her case.”

“The court takes no pleasure whatsoever in holding this nation’s President in contempt of court,” Wright wrote. However, she added, “the record demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the President responded to plaintiffs’ questions by giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process.”

Clinton’s law license in Arkansas was suspended for five years, and he paid a $25,000 fine. The Supreme Court also barred Clinton from practicing law before the nation’s highest court.

Trump made a reference to an $850,000 fine Bill Clinton paid to Paula Jones. This was, in fact, an out-of-court settlement Clinton reached with Jones, not a fine leveled by the court. 

The purpose of reaching an out-of-court settlement is to avoid an unpleasant trial that could very well end with even worse consequences, so Trump is basically correct that Clinton’s conduct cost him $850,000, and he didn’t want to pay it – it most certainly was not a charitable contribution! – but it technically wasn’t a “fine.”

47

[JoeMo]

What is a bigger barrier to the presidency - skirt chasing or being unable to recognize classified documents and then putting them on to an unsecure private server?  I'd say the latter.

What's worse - someone who says what he would like to do to an attractive woman if he were to get her alone or someone who actually carries out what he would do?  Have any women ever come out and openly accused the Trumpster of sexually assaulting them, like they have against Bill Clinton or Bill Cosby?  Actions speak louder than words.

As far as I'm concerned, the winners of last night's debate were the 3rd party candidates.  both Clinton and Trump lost a lot of swag with me last night.

[GayatfootofCross]

The Million Dollar Question!

Injecting JESUS CHRIST into this

 

The final question of the second presidential debate probably wasn't covered in Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump's preparations. "My question to both of you is, regardless of the current rhetoric, would either of you name one positive thing that you respect in one another?" audience member Carl Becker asked.

It actually changed the very air in the room

http://www.tmz.com/2016/10/10/karl-becker-presidential-debate-question/

.....................

 

Can something like that be put here for each other?

 

# Let the Joy of the Lord be your Strength!

 

[bonnie]

I really appreciate the fact that Bravus has come forward and stated he holds all to the same standard. Irrelevant that he does not believe in the deviant sexual behavior of Bill Clinton .I believe that if he did believe it he would share the same view on this topic concerning the Clintons

 

Now are you able to answer, are all to be held to the same standard?Do you believe that what eliminates one from qualifying for the president is the same standard you use  or have used for all in the same position.

Do you believe that a vulgar potty mouth concerning women is more serious than vulgar actions with women?  Do you believe trashing women victims and calling them liar,trailer trash and looney toon is abuse?

If you or anyone could be so kind as to explain when you think vulgar words,vulgar actions and lying  is acceptable or should be overlooked I would be more than happy to give you the last word.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

JoMo asked, below:

The answer is:  Yes, they are coming forward.

Have any women ever come out and openly accused the Trumpster of sexually assaulting them, like they have against Bill Clinton or Bill Cosby?

[bonnie]

14 hours ago, JoeMo said:

What is a bigger barrier to the presidency - skirt chasing or being unable to recognize classified documents and then putting them on to an unsecure private server?  I'd say the latter.

What's worse - someone who says what he would like to do to an attractive woman if he were to get her alone or someone who actually carries out what he would do?  Have any women ever come out and openly accused the Trumpster of sexually assaulting them, like they have against Bill Clinton or Bill Cosby?  Actions speak louder than words.

As far as I'm concerned, the winners of last night's debate were the 3rd party candidates.  both Clinton and Trump lost a lot of swag with me last night.

 

Donald Trump’s reputation as a womanizer is well-known. So is his history as a misogynist. But it’s only with Friday’s release of an extremely lewd video, in which the Republican nominee for President can be heard bragging how “when you’re a star” you can do whatever the hell you want to women’s bodies—including “grab them by the pussy”—that the rape accusations leveled against him are finally getting national attention.

In a statement released shortly after the Washington Post published the damning video, Trump dismissed the comments as “locker room banter.” But in light of these charges, the country is taking a closer look at what may be a history of not only sexually violent words but sexually violent actions.

According to legal documents, Trump has been accused of raping a 13-year-old child, raping his ex-wife, and attempting to rape a former business associate. He vehemently denies all of these accusations—and it should be noted anyone can file a civil complaint in court, and a complaint is by no means proof of allegations. That being said, the accusations are chilling.

The first and most famous accusation comes from Trump’s ex-wife Ivana Trump. During a deposition in the ’90s, Ivana described a harrowing scene in which Trump held her arms back, pulled at her hair, and raped her in a fit of rage. She herself used the word “rape.” The details of the incident were made public in the 1993 book Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump, written by the journalist Harry Hurt III.

Trump denies this incident took place, and before the book hit shelveshis lawyers required that it include a statement at the front written by Ivana, in which she walks back her use of the word “rape.”

“During a deposition given by me in connection with my matrimonial case, I stated that my husband had raped me,” the statement said. “I referred to this as a ‘rape,’ but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.”

In her statement she added instead that she felt “violated.”

The second accusation of sexual assault comes from a 1997 lawsuit. Jill Harth says she and her romantic partner were working with Trump on a business deal, when The Donald started making unwelcome sexual advances. In a lawsuit filed against Trump, she says he leered at her inappropriately, groped her on several occasions without her consent, and even “attempted rape.”

In her lawsuit, Harth describes a scene in which Trump took her into one of his children’s bedrooms at his Florida estate Mar-a-Lago, threw her against the wall, began touching her all over, and lifted up her dress.

In an interview with The Guardian, Harth says she had to physically prevent him from advancing and shouted out: “What are you doing? Stop it.” Adding, “It was a shocking thing to have him do this because he knew I was with George [her partner], he knew they were in the next room. And how could he be doing this when I’m there for business?”

[bonnie]

Perhaps you should attempt to reread

 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

I wouldn't want my granddaughters at the tender mercies of Donald Trump,Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton.

Part of the reason to Oppose Trump seemed to be that there are those that would not want him around their daughters, I think with good reason.

Yet another remained in office and was re-elected with similar concerns being stated about hi.

Don't let him near my daughter,but sure I will re-re-elect him

Not the actions or words of either it is the pick and choose when certain behaviors are worthy of banning one from the presidency and the other re-elected

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tom Wetmore]

It really would be interesting to know exactly what Trump would have to do or say to convince some here who seem to continue to speak in his defense to just stop defending him in any way whatsoever.  Some continue to now firmly acknowledge him to be filthy mouthed perv, but seem unable to say simply, "That is enough.  That is where I will no longer say anything more in his support or defense."  No more still holding on to the apparent hesitation of whether to they might vote for him anyway.  No more latching on to his "defense" of "Well Bill was just as bad or worse."  No matter how bad Bill Clinton or anyone else for that matter, might have been, that does not absolve Trump for what he did or said.  It is a very juvenile "defense".  It is just a diversion, a lame attempt to change the subject.

I think Trump may have been correct (for a change) when he said he could shoot a person in the middle of 5th Avenue and his base would not abandon him.  He is continually confirming the truth of that.  

[bonnie]

I did not vote for Bill Clinton,his past as a womanizer was well known the first election. I found his behavior despicable at that time and continued to do so. I did not think he should be president the first time,nor did I think he should be re-elected,he was an embarrassment .

My aversion to that behavior is not reserved for Clinton and Trump gets a pass. I don't think Trump should be president either,same type of behavior and same embarrassment. Just different name.

I I can understand those choosing to vote either one in spite of,I don't understand and believe the outrage over Trump from those that were all for keeping Clinton in office after his behavior and obstruction of justice ,it dosen''t have anything to do with the presidency,etc.

 

[bonnie]

8 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

I guess my prediction above about the red fonts has just been fulfilled. It is not wrong for someone to vote when no actual charges have been laid. 99 percent of whats being cited here as "evidence" is infact not. It is anecdotal mind bend intent on smearing the character of the two candidates for the election

Your prediction is just plain silly. 

[JoeMo]

For the record, I can't support either candidate.  Just cuz Hillary sucks, I'm supposed to vote for Donald who also sucks?  I have the same question if you switch the names.  We're supposed to vote for the person who will be the least horrible?

Tom presented an interesting concept of "false equivalence".  Right after I read that, they started using that term in the media (any media moguls members of CA?).  Both campaigns seem to leverage that concept.  In trying to shed my biases, I now find both candidates equally unacceptable for different reasons.  I am reluctant to vote for the "least unacceptable candidate" to be the leader of the free world..

[8thdaypriest]

21 hours ago, bonnie said:

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.?

Well . . . John F Kennedy certainly slept with many women (even while his wife was pregnant) and he has been elevated to icon status.  The dems use the morality charge only when it suits them, against repub rivals.  (Not that I ever heard JFK assaulted any women)

The two candidates reveal the heart of this nation.  One is smug and secretive.  She applies a different standard for herself, than she expects every one else to maintain.   The other is a lech and  showman.  Always looking for a higher mountain to climb, he has decided the presidency of the US is THE highest mountain. 

God always gives a people the rulers who reflect their own hearts.   Woe is coming to the US - and soon.

[bonnie]

1 hour ago, Tom Wetmore said:

It really would be interesting to know exactly what Trump would have to do or say to convince some here who seem to continue to speak in his defense to just stop defending him in any way whatsoever.  Some continue to now firmly acknowledge him to be filthy mother perv, but seem unable to say simply, "That is enough.  That is where I will no longer say anything more in his support or defense."  No more still holding on to the apparent hesitation of whether to they might vote for him anyway.  No more latching on to his "defense" of "Well Bill was just as bad or worse."  No matter how bad Bill Clinton or anyone else for that matter, might have been, that does not absolve Trump for what he did or said.  It is a very juvenile "defense".  It is just a diversion, a lame attempt to change the subject.

I think Trump may have been correct (for a change) when he said he could shoot a person in the middle of 5th Avenue and his base would not abandon him.  He is continually confirming the truth of that.  

I would be very surprised if you did not vote for Bill Clinton,his womanizing and Paula Jones was well known.

You should be able to answer your own question. You keep saying those here that defend Trump,please show me if you can. When did those that supported and voted Bill Clinton suddenly discover moral outrage? It isn't even the disgusting behavior of the two men. It is the wink and nod over the behavior of one and yes I am going to help re-elect him even knowing he is a filthy mother perv

Now we have another  "filthy mouthed perv" and suddenly so many are foaming at the mouth over what was okay for another. If it wasn't okay or excusable he would never have been re-elected.

You cannot absolve Trump regardless of what Bill Clinton did. But how do you have so much disgust for what Trump did,accepting what Bill Clinton did? Bill Clinton is not running,but the "real christians" among us accepted his deviant behavior in spite of.  Now you can't understand others taking the same outlook.Voting Trump in spite of. If that is defending Trump then obviously you and others defended Bill Clinton's behavior.

Both are disgusting human beings

You are right ,Bill did it" is a poor defense. Never been the question. The question is why did you and so many others accept it when Bill did it and now find the same type of behavior in Trump unacceptable" Why are you condemning the same attitude in those that will vote Trump in spite of?

The real mystery is you and others that have now suddenly discovered the moral high ground in this disgusting behavior.

What

[bonnie]

2 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

"Suddenly discovering the moral high ground" has nothing to do with it. That is a red herring if I ever heard one. By now I would hope that this is my last post here. No matter what I say or how I say it it will still be "wrong."  I feel like I am in a Skinners Box when I come to this thread

There was certainly "moral high ground" lacking when it conerned first a presidential hopeful and then a sitting president. What you refer to as anededotal was actually an admission of guilt. Now the moral highground is well traveled. Re-elect one moral degenerate and use same behavior to say another is not fit to be president. Again not the disgusting actions of either,it is the pick and choose which moral degenerate is acceptable.? Hillary Clinton was very complicit and personally responsible in the lies of one moral degenerate and now some seem puzzled why some are very opposed to that and vote another moral degenerate in spite of

[Tom Wetmore]

2 hours ago, bonnie said:

I would be very surprised if you did not vote for Bill Clinton,his womanizing and Paula Jones was well known.

You should be able to answer your own question. You keep saying those here that defend Trump,please show me if you can. When did those that supported and voted Bill Clinton suddenly discover moral outrage? It isn't even the disgusting behavior of the two men. It is the wink and nod over the behavior of one and yes I am going to help re-elect him even knowing he is a filthy mother perv

Now we have another  "filthy mouthed perv" and suddenly so many are foaming at the mouth over what was okay for another. If it wasn't okay or excusable he would never have been re-elected.

You cannot absolve Trump regardless of what Bill Clinton did. But how do you have so much disgust for what Trump did,accepting what Bill Clinton did? Bill Clinton is not running,but the "real christians" among us accepted his deviant behavior in spite of.  Now you can't understand others taking the same outlook.Voting Trump in spite of. If that is defending Trump then obviously you and others defended Bill Clinton's behavior.

Both are disgusting human beings

You are right ,Bill did it" is a poor defense. Never been the question. The question is why did you and so many others accept it when Bill did it and now find the same type of behavior in Trump unacceptable" Why are you condemning the same attitude in those that will vote Trump in spite of?

The real mystery is you and others that have now suddenly discovered the moral high ground in this disgusting behavior.

What

Really!?!?  What mystery? Are you just now seeing my outrage and strong opposition to Trump such that you think it a sudden change toward the high moral ground?!?! From the very first of him declaring he was running for president, I have been rather openly pointing these things out,  and much more just as bad, although of a quite different order.  I have never seen him as qualified in any way to be president.  And I have not hidden my contempt for him as a candidate. I think quite some time ago I said that if the the Democrats nominated an orangutan, I would vote for it before I would vote for Trump. And I have posted many things against him repeatedly, and often with moral disgust, not just for what he says about, no, brags about, what he does to women, but his morally, ethically, and arguably legal questionable, slimy cheating business practices. Cheating on his wife, rather openly in fact.   And then there is the morally indefensible lack of truthfulness.  I would not do business with him nor trust him any farther than I could toss him.  And then there is that whole tax thing.  Not his legally allowable, although shocking in magnitude, NOL carry forward.  It is his violation of the laws pertaining to his private foundation.  It is his untruthfulness and lack of transparency about his personal tax/finances. His whole demeanor, impulsiveness, and bombastic rudeness, and mean spirited vengeful obsessions about anyone who has spoken ill of him or crossed him that demonstrates a temperament  that he is unfit to be president.  And there is still more...

 

[Tom Wetmore]

1 hour ago, bonnie said:

You cannot absolve Trump regardless of what Bill Clinton did. But how do you have so much disgust for what Trump did,accepting what Bill Clinton did?  

And yet you keep right on obsessing about Bill, literally in the same breath, as a defense of Trump.  Stick to this election. To the candidates who are in fact running.  It is still the lame excuse, the non-defense of Trump that Bill was just as bad or worse.  It still comes across  the same as Trump's initial "apology" that included the "but Bill was worse" diversionary excuse.  There are likely thousands of men just as bad or worse than Trump.  But Trump is the only one of all the moral degenerates that is running for president right now... in this election.  This is about him. And what he said and did.  Stay focused...

[8thdaypriest]

Hmmmmm - and then there's King David.  Guilty of kidnapping, rape, and murder.  Multiple wives - and concubines too.

I see the LORD honoring Bathsheba, by making her son the next king of Israel.   But her son allows his pagan "wives" to bring their idols right into the heart of Jerusalem.  . . .

Rulers lacking a true heart to follow the LORD, is nothing new.   

Personally, I like Gov. Pence. 

[8thdaypriest]

Just now, 8thdaypriest said:

Hmmmmm - and then there's King David.  Guilty of kidnapping, rape, and murder.  Multiple wives - and concubines too.

I see the LORD honoring Bathsheba, by making her son the next king of Israel.   But her son allows his pagan "wives" to bring their idols right into the heart of Jerusalem.  . . .

Rulers lacking a true heart to follow the LORD, is nothing new.   

Personally, I like Gov. Pence. 

I'm gonna vote for Trump, and hope Pence will be POTUS in 4 years. 

The Baptist preacher (can't remember his name) who talked extensively with Trump, said that he was newly "converted". 

When I remember what I was like before I met Jesus, it makes me cringe. 

Does anyone know how Dr. Carson feels about all this?  I think trump is likely to make him Surgeon General.  That's worth voting for. 

[bonnie]

21 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

And yet you keep right on obsessing about Bill, literally in the same breath, as a defense of Trump.  Stick to this election. To the candidates who are in fact running.  It is still the lame excuse, the non-defense of Trump that Bill was just as bad or worse.  It still comes across  the same as Trump's initial "apology" that included the "but Bill was worse" diversionary excuse.  There are likely thousands of men just as bad or worse than Trump.  But Trump is the only one of all the moral degenerates that is running for president right now... in this election.  This is about him. And what he said and did.  Stay focused...

You keep right on obsessing about Trump's sins that are the same you accepted concerning Clinton.

You seem to be under some illusion that your opinion and that of others  is important enough that if I were defending Trump's behavior or excusing it that would cause me to do what you are accusing me of? Not a chance.

Are you on record here of making the same moral outrage and type  of statements concerning Bill Clinton?

Not what you have said about Trump since the beginning ,Calling him a pervert? Did you call Bill Clinton a pervert and then say you were voting to re-elect him? I happen to think playing around with a young woman young enough to be his daughter with cigars,lying and having a lying protective spouse qualifies for moral outrage.  When did you make the decision this type of behavior was unacceptable and should not be brought into the White House? 

I would not be any happier with Melanie Trump as president and Donald Trump roaming  the halls in search of interns.

I think exactly the same of Trump's behavior as I did and do over Bill and Hillary Clinton.  I would not want Trump alone with my granddaughters,I would not want Bill Clinton around my granddaughters,nor would I want Hillary Clinton claiming to be protecting the rights of women in a position to require her to protect my granddaughters or take their defense.

I would not want them being referred to a a looney toon,trailer trash etc because they dared to come forward about this type of behavior

[bonnie]

 

4 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Really!?!?  What mystery? Are you just now seeing my outrage and strong opposition to Trump such that you think it a sudden change toward the high moral ground?!?! From the very first of him declaring he was running for president, I have been rather openly pointing these things out,  and much more just as bad, although of a quite different order.  I have never seen him as qualified in any way to be president.  And I have not hidden my contempt for him as a candidate. I think quite some time ago I said that if the the Democrats nominated an orangutan, I would vote for it before I would vote for Trump. And I have posted many things against him repeatedly, and often with moral disgust, not just for what he says about, no, brags about, what he does to women, but his morally, ethically, and arguably legal questionable, slimy cheating business practices. Cheating on his wife, rather openly in fact.   And then there is the morally indefensible lack of truthfulness.  I would not do business with him nor trust him any farther than I could toss him.  And then there is that whole tax thing.  Not his legally allowable, although shocking in magnitude, NOL carry forward.  It is his violation of the laws pertaining to his private foundation.  It is his untruthfulness and lack of transparency about his personal tax/finances. His whole demeanor, impulsiveness, and bombastic rudeness, and mean spirited vengeful obsessions about anyone who has spoken ill of him or crossed him that demonstrates a temperament  that he is unfit to be president.  And there is still more...

I am not referring to your moral outrage over Trump from the beginning but when you decided this behavior disqualifies someone from the presidency? The record of you making the same statements concerning same behavior in a presidency? Your attitude and your statements,not that of Trump or Clinton

4 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

 I have never seen him as qualified in any way to be president.  And I have not hidden my contempt for him as a candidate. I think quite some time ago I said that if the the Democrats nominated an orangutan, I would vote for it before I would vote for Trump. And I have posted many things against him repeatedly, and often with moral disgust, not just for what he says about, no, brags about, what he does to women, but his morally, ethically, and arguably legal questionable, slimy cheating business practices. Cheating on his wife, rather openly in fact.   And then there is the morally indefensible lack of truthfulness.  I would not do business with him nor trust him any farther than I could toss him.  And then there is that whole tax thing.  Not his legally allowable, although shocking in magnitude, NOL carry forward.  It is his violation of the laws pertaining to his private foundation.  It is his untruthfulness and lack of transparency about his personal tax/finances. His whole demeanor, impulsiveness, and bombastic rudeness, and mean spirited vengeful obsessions about anyone who has spoken ill of him or crossed him that demonstrates a temperament  that he is unfit to be president.  And there is still more...

Almost all of the above could be written about Hillary Clinton by those that oppose her. You can't tolerate the idea that there are many that despise what Hillary Clinton stands for and feels exactly the same way.

4 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

 demeanor, impulsiveness, and bombastic rudeness, 

Hillary Clinton is not impulsive or bombastic ,just as bad she is cunning, deceitful and vicious to those that would threaten her position as she did when she was first lady

[bonnie]

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I'm gonna vote for Trump, and hope Pence will be POTUS in 4 years. 

The Baptist preacher (can't remember his name) who talked extensively with Trump, said that he was newly "converted". 

When I remember what I was like before I met Jesus, it makes me cringe. 

Does anyone know how Dr. Carson feels about all this?  I think trump is likely to make him Surgeon General.  That's worth voting for. 

I think Pence is a real plus,I like him and wish he were the candidate.  I really like and admire Ben Carson, altho many here have found fault with him.