Trust

[joeb]

The people here on the political left keep on trying to point out how untrustworthy the Republican candidates for President are.  They do it in a multitude of ways.  What I'd like to do here is to find out how many people here trust Hillary Clinton, and why those people do after all the years of questionable ethical decisions, her role in the destruction of the women who had affairs with Bill, and all the current issues associated with trust and honesty. 

In the associated poll your name will show with how you voted.   I'm telling you that up front. 

[joeb]

Hmm....  I don't see my name associated with my vote so maybe that isn't working, or at least not with how I thought it should work.

[joeb]

Ah, I see how it works.  Click on the little figure next to the count of the number of people who voted one way or another and the names will show up.

Edited May 29, 2015 by joeb

[Tom Wetmore]

Not sure what the point of this is really.  Trust is one part of the range of factors to consider.  I assume the premise is that one would or should only vote for who they trust.  Not a bad idea, really.  But trust about what in particular.  So many on the right hated Bill and would refer to his sexual misconduct and say that made him unfit and untrustworthy to be president.  Well I wouldn't say that sexual trustworthiness or lack thereof is much of an indicator of competency, intelligence, wisdom, experience or trustworthiness in many of the other areas necessary to be an effective president, such as grasp of the economic policy, foreign affairs, domestic policies, etc.  If he was running to be my son-in-law, the sexual thing would be a big factor.  But not really for president.

 

As for Hilary, face the partisan reality.  Nothing she can do - ever - will make you and most on the right trust her or even want to trust her.  Nothing.  That has been the case with Obama.  It really hasn't mattered what he does or says.  You all just don't like him and do not want to trust him.  So we get the broad brush declarations that he is a liar, that he is corrupt... yada, yada, yada.  No need for evidence.  No need for proof.   Because it wouldn't matter one way or the other.  Nay hint of speculative conjecture is all the proof some want or need.  And if there is no evidence the belief is  that he is hiding the truth, hiding the evidence, engaging in a vast coverup.  If an investigation/report concludes he is not lying or corrupt, the investigation/ report is based or faulty or whatever.  If there is proof positive in favor of him, that won't be believed because that is just more of the lies and corruption.  And the same will be the case about Hilary.  

 

At some point not being able to trust someone may not be their problem.  It may be that the problem lies in the heart of the one unable to trust. 

 

[Bravus]

It's also a matter of 'trust to do what?' I trust Ted Cruz to try to usher in a theocracy, for example. I trust Ben Carson to further dismantle the social safety nets that he benefited from as a child.

I trust Hillary to do neither of those things. On the other hand, I trust her to be far more cozy with multinational corporations than I'm comfortable with, and far more hawkish.

There are no gods or saints running - it'd be great if there were. In the end, the contest is pretty much 'who would destroy the country more slowly'. I trust Hillary to do that, but I trust Bernie Sanders more to slow the rate at which the US destroys itself.

[bonnie]

Hilary showed her true colors with her little pretty in pink defense of her ever faithless husband. Bill Clintons amoral conduct going back decades was well known to her. Yet she blamed the women and that mysterious right wing conspiracy for her husband's sleezy and illegal behavior. Some woman's advocate she is. After blaming others in her false defense of her husband she didn't have the decency to say she had been wrong. Her choice what she is willing to put up with,overlook or fogive.It is not her choice to blame the women he harmed and others she willingly lied about. Great that old Bill will have free access to young interns again.  Be interesting to see who she blames then or maybe there are those here that think Bill Clinton has changed his womanizing ways

 

Edited May 29, 2015 by bonnie

[Tom Wetmore]

[bonnie]

​When our boys were quite young they used to roll their eyes in response to something that went against what they wanted to hear. Thankfully they outgrew a lot of their juvenile behavior at a reasonably young age.

I know many SDA's consider the behavior of  Bill Clinton while in office "no big deal" and understand and accept the length of the public blatant  dishonesty of his wife in his defense a big yawn.To say nothing of the lengths she was willing to go to destroy publically those accusing him of this behavior,while at the same time defending the poor downtrodden women. I don't believe that those that support the Clintons believe anything has changed and that somehow Hilary can now reign his sleezy degrading behavior.  Sadly I don't believe they care how many young interns he chases around the White House as he surely will or how many Hilary will destroy for objecting. It is the Clintons after all and he is such a charming sleeze and Hilary of course is the smartest woman

 

 

 

[Tom Wetmore]

I expect that when Bill is long dead and gone, there will still be those that go dig up his grave to beat his dead bones...

[bonnie]

Not a surprising answer

But Bill Clinton and his horse are not dead and gone and he could very likely be back at the White House spreading his questionable charms among young interns. With Hilary providing cover and blaming the interns and the vast right wing conspiracy.

 Neither has taken responsibility for what they said and who they blamed but a serial sexual predator in the White House in any capacity is alright with some. I would expect "some" not to care after all it is only sex.and a few lies protecting a sexual predator

 

Edited May 30, 2015 by bonnie

[Tom Wetmore]

Footnote to History... Those in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/05/30/3664334/now-know-republican-speakers-helped-impeach-bill-clinton/ 

[bonnie]

Not a surprising answer

But Bill Clinton and his horse are not dead and gone and he could very likely be back at the White House spreading his questionable charms among young interns. With Hilary providing cover and blaming the interns and the vast right wing conspiracy.

 Neither has taken responsibility for what they said and who they blamed but a serial sexual predator in the White House in any capacity is alright with some. I would expect "some" not to care after all it is only sex.and a few lies protecting a sexual predator

 

Footnote to History... Those in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/05/30/3664334/now-know-republican-speakers-helped-impeach-bill-clinton/ 

​​What does that have to do with willingly placing a sexual predator back in the White House? Sleeze bags are alive and well in either party. Other sleeze bags,democrat or republican are not responsible for Clintons serial sexual behavior going back  to Arkansas.Neither is anyone else responsible for the blatant lies told by his wife to cover up this tomcat behavior by her husband,or her willingness to destroy any that would dare go public with his behavior known to her..

That is as silly as saying that because Dennis Hassert has behaved like a immoral  moron Clinton should be excused.  What is to prevent Clinton from finding himself  being threatened with blackmail. Altho I would hate to be the one to threaten a Clinton and expect to come our in one piece.

The behavior of others does not lessen the impact of the behavior of the president or the spouse of a president. Each one is totally responsible for their behavior.

As reprehensible as the behavior of the republicans listed was which one committed perjury?  Which wife went on a campaign to lie and blame others and did everything possible to destroy the reputation of those that went public? The Clintons are in a class by themselves

Edited May 30, 2015 by bonnie

[Bravus]

What is done with penises is far less important than what is done with missiles. 

[bonnie]

 and What is done with penises is far less important than what is done with missiles. 

In the world we live in missiles are not always wrong. A serial sexual predator is always wrong,as is perjury and obstructing justice .A wife that lies,blames others and seeks to destroy those that speak out is never right in my world. Perhaps it is for you.

Maybe in your world the choice boils down to a man that is totally amoral,,a wife that lies to cover his amoral behavior,a president that commits perjury or the use of missiles.  I don't think that is a rational choice. I do think it is a liberal choice.

Those harmed by penises may not agree with you on the more harmless effect. Families destroyed,,young children harmed beyond measure feels like being hit by a missile to the many that have gone thru it.

It is impossible to be partially honest for anyone,The willingness to lie and obstruct is not limited to this lesser sin of waving a penis around.

[bonnie]

Your statement reminds me of a question I was asked on the forum sometime back.Don't recall who and it really doesn't matter. The question was concerning marrying outside the SDA denomination. Would I rather have my children marry a abusive  SDA or a non abusive true christian of another denomination. Your statement makes as much sense,as if that are the only two choices available.

[Naomi]

I voted "No" but I would have voted "No" if the name had been any of the candidates.  To fully trust anyone in politics or in the private sector is a slippery slope.  People will surprise you, disappoint you, and impress you.  At times I have to look at myself and ask "Why Did YOU do that?"  Hillary is a sharp lady, a leader.  She is not perfect but she is tough enough to stand up to stand the test of time.

I would assume that I could be "labeled" conservative, however I do not consider Bill Clinton a predator, I suspect that the ladies he was involved with were willing participants ... not some innocent minor.  I am not condoning his actions in his personal life, but he was a good President;  two separate issues.

Many women have had to make a decision concerning their husband's faithfulness, and many men have also had to make that choice concerning their wife.  There are usually three sides to every story; her side, his side and what really happened.  

[bonnie]

I voted "No" but I would have voted "No" if the name had been any of the candidates.  To fully trust anyone in politics or in the private sector is a slippery slope.  People will surprise you, disappoint you, and impress you.  At times I have to look at myself and ask "Why Did YOU do that?"  Hillary is a sharp lady, a leader.  She is not perfect but she is tough enough to stand up to stand the test of time.

I would assume that I could be "labeled" conservative, however I do not consider Bill Clinton a predator, I suspect that the ladies he was involved with were willing participants ... not some innocent minor.  I am not condoning his actions in his personal life, but he was a good President;  two separate issues.

Many women have had to make a decision concerning their husband's faithfulness, and many men have also had to make that choice concerning their wife.  There are usually three sides to every story; her side, his side and what really happened.  

​It isn't the choice she made staying with him Personally I think they deserve each other. Her business entirely.What made it the business of the country was her choice to go on national television and lie,blame others and to attempt to destroy the women that came forward. She knew his pattern of behavior,if she didn't,no she isn't a very sharp lady. The behavior of Bill Clinton was well known going back to Arkansas. What we know really happened is he committed perjury and obstructed justice.Whatever responsibility any of the women had, Bill Clinton was solely responsible for his own actions. Not to many would care about the private life of a young intern,that changes when her private life involves the president of the US,behavior in the White House with a young woman his daughters age and perjury as a result.

Let's provide him with a few more young interns.At least the next time he can't be impeached for perjury

 

Edited May 31, 2015 by bonnie

[joeb]

Not a surprising answer

But Bill Clinton and his horse are not dead and gone and he could very likely be back at the White House spreading his questionable charms among young interns. With Hilary providing cover and blaming the interns and the vast right wing conspiracy.

 Neither has taken responsibility for what they said and who they blamed but a serial sexual predator in the White House in any capacity is alright with some. I would expect "some" not to care after all it is only sex.and a few lies protecting a sexual predator

 

​Bonnie,

I posted this thread just to see how many professed Christians see no real problem with immoral behavior if the ones engaging in it align with their political ideals.  You will get nowhere with those people.  They ignore sin as if it says nothing about the persons who engage in it willfully over long periods of time.  Sin is no big deal to them.  Their activity on this thread shows it.

[joeb]

Footnote to History... Those in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/05/30/3664334/now-know-republican-speakers-helped-impeach-bill-clinton/ 

​That's patently ridiculous.  Where have you seen any conservatives on this thread condoning immoral behavior by members of either party?  A sleaze ball is a sleaze ball no matter what political party they belong to.  Character matters and the fact that you do not think it does says a lot about you.  Oh, I know you'll deny that, but you've just been on this thread denying it matters.  Mocking those who say it does, so you're denial will mean nothing.

[bonnie]

​Bonnie,

I posted this thread just to see how many professed Christians see no real problem with immoral behavior if the ones engaging in it align with their political ideals.  You will get nowhere with those people.  They ignore sin as if it says nothing about the persons who engage in it willfully over long periods of time.  Sin is no big deal to them.  Their activity on this thread shows it.

​It isn't just the immoral behavior that is condoned or winked at. It is the long standing lying and dragging the women involved thru the mud. The perjury. Maybe perjury is alright as long as it involves the sacred topic of sex.

It really shouldn't be surprising that our denomination winked at and blamed the women,no matter what age dealing with predator pastors reading how insignificent this behavior of  numerous sexual encounters and lies and blaming others is seen

[joeb]

I voted "No" but I would have voted "No" if the name had been any of the candidates.  To fully trust anyone in politics or in the private sector is a slippery slope.  People will surprise you, disappoint you, and impress you.  At times I have to look at myself and ask "Why Did YOU do that?"  Hillary is a sharp lady, a leader.  She is not perfect but she is tough enough to stand up to stand the test of time.

I would assume that I could be "labeled" conservative, however I do not consider Bill Clinton a predator, I suspect that the ladies he was involved with were willing participants ... not some innocent minor.  I am not condoning his actions in his personal life, but he was a good President;  two separate issues.

Many women have had to make a decision concerning their husband's faithfulness, and many men have also had to make that choice concerning their wife.  There are usually three sides to every story; her side, his side and what really happened.  

​Maybe they were.  However, these incidents are classical sexual abuse cases for Bill Clinton in each case was a power figure who used police officers to pick up and transport them.  Who is going to say no in this type of situation?  Most women will be intimidated quite badly.  Then, look at how Hillary went after each of these women and destroyed their lives for decades.  You really want a person like that in the White House?  Bill was the aggressor in every case yet Hillary destroys his sexual partners.  Why?  What character flaw does expose?

[Bravus]

Only comment from me on Bill is that 'serial sexual predator' is inflammatory and inaccurate for someone who participated in *consensual* liaisons with adults. 

The thread is not about Bill, it's about whether we trust Hillary. I trust her to do some good stuff and some bad stuff. I trust all the Republican candidates so far to do less good stuff and more bad stuff. 

[joeb]

Only comment from me on Bill is that 'serial sexual predator' is inflammatory and inaccurate for someone who participated in *consensual* liaisons with adults. 

The thread is not about Bill, it's about whether we trust Hillary. I trust her to do some good stuff and some bad stuff. I trust all the Republican candidates so far to do less good stuff and more bad stuff. 

​And on what evidence is your distrust of them greater than your distrust of Hillary.  

When it's a husband and wife team, as Bill and Hillary are, then it's impossible to separate them on character issues.  They cover for one another so the character flaws of one are the character flaws of the other, or are at least not very objectionable to the other. 

[joeb]

Only comment from me on Bill is that 'serial sexual predator' is inflammatory and inaccurate for someone who participated in *consensual* liaisons with adults.

The thread is not about Bill, it's about whether we trust Hillary. I trust her to do some good stuff and some bad stuff. I trust all the Republican candidates so far to do less good stuff and more bad stuff. 

​No it isn't.  Every one of these cases is a classical  sexual abuse scenario.  In all but the Lewinsky case you have a very powerful man using police officers to transport women to the "liaisons".  In the Lewinsky case you have an employee servicing her boss.  And that boss is the most powerful man in the world.  Classic sexual abuse cases.

Edited May 31, 2015 by joeb

[joeb]

​It isn't just the immoral behavior that is condoned or winked at. It is the long standing lying and dragging the women involved thru the mud. The perjury. Maybe perjury is alright as long as it involves the sacred topic of sex.

It really shouldn't be surprising that our denomination winked at and blamed the women,no matter what age dealing with predator pastors reading how insignificent this behavior of  numerous sexual encounters and lies and blaming others is seen

​Bonnie,

I understand what you're saying, but I include all of that under immoral behavior.  Lying, deceit, etc... is immoral.