Major Earthquake Strikes Trump Campaign

[Tom Wetmore]

@bonnie Repeating what I have said and trying to turn ( or twist, really) it into your own argument against the other candidate is worse than the false equivalency fallacy.  It's just intellectual laziness.  It is basically like cutting and pasting other peoples ideas and making it look like it is your own thoughts and ideas.  At least try to come up with something of your own... 

Of course, it is what Trump does frequently...  

[bonnie]

21 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

@bonnie Repeating what I have said and trying to turn ( or twist, really) it into your own argument against the other candidate is worse than the false equivalency fallacy.  It's just intellectual laziness.  It is basically like cutting and pasting other peoples ideas and making it look like it is your own thoughts and ideas.  At least try to come up with something of your own... 

Of course, it is what Trump does frequently...  

Amazing. What is it that you don't get about double standard? According to your moral compass

Bill Clinton was accepted and re-elected with all the moral "virtues" of a tom cat

Donald Trump with the moral "virtues of a tom cat" should be disqualified from being president. 

Hillary Clinton and her lies and abuse of those that came forward concerning her husband is understandable and she should be viewed as this great advocate for women

According to mine

Bill Clinton  with all the moral "virtues" of a tom cat should have been removed from office and not re-elected

Donald Trump with the moral "virtues of a tom cat" should be disqualified from being president. 

Hillary Clinton has never acknowledged her dishonest part in keeping herself in the White house,her abuse of the victims of her husbands. She doesn't belong there as a advocate for anyone that is vulnerable. I would not want either men around my family,nor would I want to have Hillary Clinton "advocating" in her manner for them.

You can call that defense of Trump to your heart's content. None can be defended and ALL should be condemned for this behavior.

 

 

[Tom Wetmore]

4 hours ago, bonnie said:

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

Not obsessing.  Trump is the one running of president now.  It is current events.  In the news.  Right now.  It is relevant right now.  You know, because of the election in a few weeks.

4 hours ago, bonnie said:

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

Those events from Bill Clinton's time in office happened about 2 decades ago.  There was no Club Adventist here to express my moral outrage.  By the time it came along and I became active here,  Bill Clinton was retired.  George W. Bush was president.  If I vented my spleen about current political events and personages, that would have been the relevant targets of my moral outrage.

 

[bonnie]

Did you vote for Bill Clinton knowing what was well known? Did you vote to re-elect him knowing what we all knew?

Do you find him the same pervert as Donald Trump? Donald Trump claims to have changed,do you believe him?

Do you believe Bill Clinton has changed and no problem with his unrestrained access to young interns?

Do you believe Hillary Clinton would react the same way as president as first lady? Would she lie and trash those accusing her husband? Or do you think she would react as Melanie Trump.? I don't know much about her but in that single incident she was a class act. No excuses,no blaming anyone, no blaming a vast left wing conspiracy. Could we expect the same behavior form a president that promotes herself as a woman's advocate?

Can there be change for anyone without accountability towards those that have been harmed? I don't believe there is. 

Public accountability is necessary when the harm has been done publically and I don't find any by either Trump or Hillary Clinton.

Whether you were here or not, did you support Bill Clinton with the behavior you are now opposing Trump over?

I don't see any difference in the moral character and integrity of the two candidates and I really have a lot of reservations about Wandering Bill

[GayatfootofCross]

5 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

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 just found this!

Dr. Ben Carson looks like he will say anything to ensure that position.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ben-carson-donald-trump_us_57fd2681e4b0b6a43035dd70?section

 

Article  uses those Trump words.

rated R for Lord Help Me

so beware

.... ..

And Hello 8thdaypreist, it's been ages!

 

[bonnie]

13 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

lol, thanks. After reading all of the ballyhoo above I needed a chuckle. I guess if I were to come on this forum and call the one electoral candidate a dunce, and the other one a fool; I would still get into hot water here over it for "not showing the same moral out rage."  Time for some soup.

Nope,where you might get into hot water is by saying I would vote or did vote for one sexual predator as was done twice,but this time around I am against sexual predators. Come to think of it,probably not. Many did and are doing just that. 

Being either a dunce or a fool is not a criminal offense. 

[Tom Wetmore]

14 hours ago, bonnie said:

Did you vote for Bill Clinton knowing what was well known? Did you vote to re-elect him knowing what we all knew?

Do you find him the same pervert as Donald Trump? Donald Trump claims to have changed,do you believe him?

Do you believe Bill Clinton has changed and no problem with his unrestrained access to young interns?

Do you believe Hillary Clinton would react the same way as president as first lady? Would she lie and trash those accusing her husband? Or do you think she would react as Melanie Trump.? I don't know much about her but in that single incident she was a class act. No excuses,no blaming anyone, no blaming a vast left wing conspiracy. Could we expect the same behavior form a president that promotes herself as a woman's advocate?

Can there be change for anyone without accountability towards those that have been harmed? I don't believe there is. 

Public accountability is necessary when the harm has been done publically and I don't find any by either Trump or Hillary Clinton.

Whether you were here or not, did you support Bill Clinton with the behavior you are now opposing Trump over?

I don't see any difference in the moral character and integrity of the two candidates and I really have a lot of reservations about Wandering Bill

Asking all the wrong questions. You are still obsessing... Stay focused...  Back to the two real candidates in the election and the real fundamental issues about their experience, temperament, and qualifications for the office to which they aspire. 

[bonnie]

1 hour ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Asking all the wrong questions. You are still obsessing... Stay focused...  Back to the two real candidates in the election and the real fundamental issues about their experience, temperament, and qualifications for the office to which they aspire. 

 

No Tom,It is time for you to stay focused on the topic Gregory started. It was not about experience ,temperament or qualifications  for office.. As Gregory stated..... It will be interesting to see how the American public views such.   

referring to the vulgar tape released about Trump.

 Some of the american public are now outraged over this behavior. There are those that will vote for Trump because they like what they think he will do,those that vote in spite of either in opposition to Clinton or some just because they feel strongly they should vote and are choosing the lesser of two evils.  These individuals are nominal christians and more and are portrayed as agreeing with the worst Trump has to offer. 

Not qualifications as that was not mentioned in the post but how the american people would react to the smut.

If you voted for Bill Clinton twice with knowing the smut he acted out,if you felt it did not hinder his presidency,and that it was just a private affair,what is your objection this go round concerning smut and does that make you a nominal christian

for accepting that part of Bill Clinton's character? In view of previous attitudes towards what should disqualify for the presidency what has changed your mind now? Not who you feel is best qualified to be president but how the American public views such.   

 

If you want to include  their experience, temperament, and qualifications no problem,but don't dismiss the initial purpose of this topic.

Holding a position and not understanding the rules, others did it as an excuse,Someone explained how to do it so I did it,

not remembering numerous security briefings and instructions on e-mail,my staff needed immunity,etc is not a resume enhancement in the private sector.  Presenting this to our bank she would not be hired,yet her experience to you is a qualification.

A lot of people take the e-mail scandal a lot more seriously than you do. This was more than her grocery list or hair appt that was deleted. It was forgetting something far more vital than where you left your car keys. 

Her temperament says it is okay to publically attack victims and protect the guilty instead.

You cannot or more accurately I think will not explain how those  that voted to keep one sexually deviant president in office now believe a sexually deviant hopeful is not qualified to be president.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bonnie]

Plain and simple,the focus of this topic is how the american people view smutty language. Have you always viewed smutty language and more importantly smutty actions and demeaning women as something that should disqualify holding the highest office in the land?

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, bonnie said:

Have you always viewed smutty language and more importantly smutty actions and demeaning women as something that should disqualify holding the highest office in the land?

No, smutty behavior should disqualify someone from being a pastor or elder.  If it disqualifies someone from political office, IMHO probably half the people in office would be disqualified.  What upsets people about Trump is that he got caught being a horn dog.  I'm not defending him; I've decided I probably can't make myself vote for him.  I for sure can't vote for Hillary.  I'm sure most of you have heard her campaign's 2011 rant against conservative Catholics and Evangelicals.  I wonder what her campaign thinks about Bible thumping Sabbath keeping "male only pastors" SDAs?  Have we, too "bastardized the faith" (Hillary campaign's words - not mine)?

[bonnie]

19 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

I do not think anyone on this forum is anywhere close to being qualified to judge everyone elses "moral compass." That appears to be what you have boiled everything down to...you seem quite satisfied to sit in judgment of intimate details for all of us which God only had qualifications for. Neither Toms nor mine nor anyone elses "moral compass" is for you to make pronouncements on You are way out of your league and way off topic according to the op

Do you understand the difference between a question and a judgement?  Hopefully you have a dictionary

A judgement is "nominal christians" and other statements regarding those that will or might vote for Trump.

A question is questioning the reasoning of those that did not exhibit the same disdain for smutty behavior as they are now showing for smutty conversation.

[JoeMo]

 

[bonnie]

46 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

 

I appreciate the thought. However I have not frequently singled  out the OP for snarky comments. I don't mind the comments but I do mind the implications that are far from accurate.

 

[Bravus]

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/11/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-bill-clinton-accusers/index.html
 

Worth a read. Also worth noting that the Starr investigation is clear that Monica Lewinsky set out to seduce Bill Clinton by, among other things, flashing her thong and flirting. She was 25. Infantilising grown women and making others responsible for their choices in not championing or protecting women.

Bill Clinton clearly has been unfaithful to his wife many times. There is no solid evidence that any of these encounters were non-consensual. There is no solid evidence that Hillary intimidated any of these women.

The differences in the level of 'moral outrage' are quite understandable in the context of the actual evidence (rather than febrile imaginings).

Bill is not running for office. Hillary is... and she is a woman who has managed to make a marriage work for 41 years, despite her husband's failings as a husband. Her opponent is on his third marriage and has also spoken in the recently released (but 11 year old) tape of hitting on married women.

The person who is actually running for office, then, Hillary Rodham Clinton, has protected and defended her marriage for 41 years... and that's something to celebrate and support, not something to damn.

[Tom Wetmore]

19 minutes ago, David Geelan said:

Her opponent is on his third marriage and has also spoken in the recently released (but 11 year old) tape of hitting on married women.

And worth noting that he made those comments on the bus shortly after getting married to his current wife.  

21 minutes ago, David Geelan said:

Bill is not running for office. Hillary is... and she is a woman who has managed to make a marriage work for 41 years, despite her husband's failings as a husband.

* * *

The person who is actually running for office, then, Hillary Rodham Clinton, has protected and defended her marriage for 41 years... and that's something to celebrate and support, not something to damn.

Just wanted to affirm this.  It seems a very Christian response to infidelity of a spouse, IMHO.

[bonnie]

25 minutes ago, David Geelan said:

 

Worth a read. Also worth noting that the Starr investigation is clear that Monica Lewinsky set out to seduce Bill Clinton by, among other things, flashing her thong and flirting. She was 25. Infantilising grown women and making others responsible for their choices in not championing or protecting women.

Bill Clinton clearly has been unfaithful to his wife many times. There is no solid evidence that any of these encounters were non-consensual. There is no solid evidence that Hillary intimidated any of these women.

The differences in the level of 'moral outrage' are quite understandable in the context of the actual evidence (rather than febrile imaginings).

 

I believe Monica Lewinsky was 22 at the time. I have never held her completely blameless for her behavior. She is not however responsible for the behavior and response  of a man close to 50 with the power of the presidency.  I don't know, Maybe I expect more from my husband than other wives but the excuse "she seduced me" wouldn't fly. With that excuse I think my first inclination would be to take a page from Lorena Bobbits handbook. The chance to keep the marriage together would depend in a large part to take responsibility,not only to me but to any that was hurt by his behavior. Not blaming anyone else,not gee he couldn't help it,that young woman seduced me.

Bill Clinton and only Bill Clinton is responsible for his conduct. He alone is responsible for his lies as Hillary is. You can dispute or find a reason it is acceptable but Hillary Clinton did in fact make out Bill's accusers out to be liars very publically.

A faithful man that loves his wife would have dismissed Monica Lewinsky at the first snap of her thong. A mature man would not have lied repeatedly and allowed his wife to do the same. This is the same reasoning that gives Dr's,Pastor's Teachers a pass and blames the female involved.   Making others responsible for men's choices is not championing or protecting women.

 

Starting with Paula Jones there credible accusations that many of these encounters were non-consensual. There is credible evidence that Hillary intimidated some of these women.

We have the tape that is without dispute. We have accusations from women concerning Trump. Besides that where is the solid evidence of Trump's behavior. I don't doubt a lot of it,but where is the solid proof. Where is the questioning of the accusers honesty and integrity?

 

[bonnie]

1 hour ago, Tom Wetmore said:

And worth noting that he made those comments on the bus shortly after getting married to his current wife.  

Just wanted to affirm this.  It seems a very Christian response to infidelity of a spouse, IMHO.

Paula Jones was during the Clinton  marriage and I believe after the birth of Chelsea.Very credible. As are his other accusers. The choice is not to believe any of them.There is more than one statement on this forum that men just have to learn to behave themselves regardless of how the woman dresses or acts,except if you are Bill Clinton it seems. Monica snaps her thong and he is seduced,cannot help himself

All accusers of Trump's,most without proof are credible and to be believed

[Bravus]

Nope. I was not saying any of that.

*Of course* Bill is responsible for his actions. He was unfaithful. That's wrong and reflects very badly on him. I would say I judge him for it... but under Jesus' definition of adultery (though not the usual definition) I'm as guilty as him.

My point was simply that Monica and his other mistresses were also accountable for their own actions. Monica was not a helpless ingenue as she has sometimes been portrayed here. She made choices, as an adult. So did Bill.

Still, Bill is not running for office. If he were, these decisions of his would be relevant.

As it is, Hillary is the one running for office, and her decision was to stand by her marriage despite her partner's failings.

[bonnie]

You are referring to victim's of abuse as mistresses. 

[Bravus]

Nope. You are presuming, without evidence, that consensual affairs constitute abuse.

[bonnie]

31 minutes ago, David Geelan said:

Nope. You are presuming, without evidence, that consensual affairs constitute abuse.

No I am not. Altho I do consider holding those that have pretty credibly claimed to have had a consensual affair with Bill Clinton being abused when Bill and Hillary Clinton publically branded them liars.I doubt if the women mentioned below consider what happened to them consensual

Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  (Redirected from Sexual misconduct allegations against Bill Clinton)

 

Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States (1993-2001), has been publicly accused by several women of sexual misconduct. Juanita Broaddrick has accused Clinton of rape; Kathleen Willey has accused Clinton of groping her without consent; and Paula Jones accuses Clinton of exposing himself and sexually harassing her. Other women have alleged adulterous affairs with Bill Clinton (e.g., Dolly Kyle, Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky). In addition, rumors of additional sexual misconduct have been publicized in tabloid magazines and on the Internet.

Of all the allegations made against him regarding his sexual history, Clinton has only admitted extramarital relationships with Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers, although he settled the suit brought by Paula Jones for $850,000. He denied having an affair with Dolly Kyle.

[Bravus]

Which is what I said. Allegations without evidence. Juanita Broadrick has recanted her accusation several times when to proceed would have constituted perjury, but then re-stated it when it was safe for her to do so. And so on. Lots of accusations, none of them proved. Innocent until proven guilty of abuse and predation. Proven guilty of adultery.

[bonnie]

1 hour ago, David Geelan said:

Which is what I said. Allegations without evidence. Juanita Broadrick has recanted her accusation several times when to proceed would have constituted perjury, but then re-stated it when it was safe for her to do so. And so on. Lots of accusations, none of them proved. Innocent until proven guilty of abuse and predation. Proven guilty of adultery.

David,

There is no sarcasm intended here  whatsoever,you have helped clarify this issue for me

This statement just amazes me.......Monica Lewinsky set out to seduce Bill Clinton by, among other things, flashing her thong and flirting. 

Before she flipped her thong there had to be some acknowledgement between them that the President would be receptive to that behavior. A president is heavily guarded and I can't imagine has to much privacy unless he arranges it.Before that point his personal responsibility was to put a stop to it by removing her .Monica was not obligated to a spouse,child or the country.While her behavior leaves a lot to be desired her responsibility and blame isn't even in the ball park

Aside from that I understand a little better the difference in opinion. 

If you are a Bill Clinton or? credible accusations  of sexual abuse are considered  consensual sex unless proven in a court of law.

Paula Jones was perfectly willing to do that but elected to settle out of court.Of course there was a confidentiality clause and no admission of guilt,so presumably sexual assault of Paula Jones was a consensual act,no problem,no one's business.

The other accusers really wanted it and it was consensual or never happened.Both work for Bill Clinton. It was just a matter of Bill Clinton, Monica and his other mistresses.

Donald Trump has accusations against him,so far same type of charges leveled against him. There isn't any proof,any court proceedings with jury where he is found guilty..Credible accusers,but no evidence of the type demanded before Bill Clinton's accusers are victims instead of consensual affairs.Still he is guilty of most of what is thrown at him. Not fit for the presidency.

This apparently works for you and others as a way to have supported one man and condemn another. It doesn't for me. Bill Clinton's accusers should be given the same consideration,respect,concern and belief as those of Donald Trump.

And yes,he is not running,but many are willing to place him with access to foolish,ignorant interns that think it exciting to play sex games with a former president

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bonnie]

4 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

And worth noting that he made those comments on the bus shortly after getting married to his current wife.  

Just wanted to affirm this.  It seems a very Christian response to infidelity of a spouse, IMHO.

We have a different understanding of what a christian response is. Melanie Trump was an example of a christian response

The first time I saw and heard Hillary Clinton I was impressed.Not in a good way but her ability in that interview was amazing.

The nation by the time was well acquainted with Bill Clinton's womanizing,the interviewer had to know she was lying.

It  the topic so much as her amazing ability to lie and be as convincing as she was. As practiced and polished as she was I believe she could probably pass a lie detector test. Trump isn't nearly as practiced and polished.

Several years later she gave another command performance. Same lies,same blame in the same amazingly convincing manner. While many people lie very few are as good as Hillary Clinton without a lot of practice in your daily life. You don't lie just twice .

Christian says you do not blame others for the "lies" about your husband. Christian says you don't lie to the country to protect your personal situation

[CoAspen]

Wow! It has become the Bill Clinton Hour! This conversation borders on the rediculous. A woman stands by her husband, for what ever reason, and is condemned. Very Cool. I thought the election was about experience and who has the best ability to run the country. Guess I was wrong!! People need to get real and try to attain some understanding about what running a coutry involves. As I have mentioned before, there have been no perfect candidates, all were human, in the past nor will there be in the future. So getting beyond the foibles, personalities, mistakes and wrongs, who of the current canidates has the most experience? If people want to go into politicol rhetoric and just blame all the ills and woes on the current administration, I would suggest a study of our system of checks and balances. No one person or persons makes all the policies of the government, it is give and take with many compromises. To blame the current pres or a paticular party is the easy way out. To go one and one about emails show a lack of focus on the real issues of the country, a convenient way to shift away from those issues. No secrets were divulged in the emails that damaged the country in any way, some even being classified after the fact. No hue and cry about the originator of those possible confidential emails! 

DT's best answers for everything is to blame someone else or whip up paranoia about what ever he thinks the audience wants to believe. He not the first to do that, it has happened in the past. He has shown no leadership ability. Business acumen, not hardly, he lost a billion dollars!! His strategy for the security of the country, keep people out because of their religion! How would he handle ISIS, secret plan or maybe bomb them into oblivion along with any incidental civilians, which happens from time to time now and how is that working out? Why is he behind in the polls, its a plot by the liberal media, they are not truthful, polls aren't to be trusted, unless they agree with you!! His mouth spouts more trash taling on a daily basis than what goes on in  football game!! Is their anyone he doesn't blame? What, where or when has he demonstrated leadership? The buck stop with the leader, but according to him it can be anyone else but him.

I hear much naivete about what it takes to run this country in todays world or even in the past. So far all of the hue and cry has been of the 'personality dislike' type rather than ability. What I see being spouted by Trump supporters and printed on the clothing they wear and placards should leave sane people shaking their heads. Of course not allof them are acting that way, but DT openly encourages such and is the originator of thought for such. A president has to appoint knowledge people because the pres can not be an expert on everything. Do people really think DT's ego would allow that? I don't believe he is smart enough to pick the right people, even though he claims to know more than all the generals about running a war. 

Lets get off this whole sex issue and discuss the real issues facing the country or would that strain our minds too much??

(let the , I likie fresh garden grown tomatoes...)