This really explains a lot!

[Tom Wetmore]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/10/fear-of-a-female-president/497564/ 

[Outta Here]

Some Americans are truly awful people.

[CoAspen]

The article said what I have long believed but didn't want to take the time to prove through research. Whenever I have asked the question "why do you dislike Hillary", I get vague, unsubstantiated replies, from both women and men. Most say "I don't know, there is just something about her"! How true, her is a women! The bottom line is 'how dare she think she can be in charge'. 

(What if God is gender neutral? Maybe that makes 'Him' God!)

[bonnie]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/2/liar/

6 in 10  americans believe Hillary Clinton is dishonest and untrustworthy. 

Maybe those that you consider racist or sexist just have a hard time believing someone that lived in the WH for eight  years,senator for eight years,Secretary of state was so ignorant she believed the C for classified meant alphabetical order. Or that she can t remember numerous security briefings.Nor do many people believe her story on Benghazi anymore than they now believe she dodged sniper fire.

Some remember her very "sincere" lies to first help her husband gain the WH and then to keep the WH.

A gender neutral or female God wouldn't have anymore patience with a female liar as oppossed to a male liar

 

[CoAspen]

What people 'believe' and can provide 'proof' of can be different, sometimes vastly different. The point of the article is provide some answers as to why people think the way they do about her with out any proof.

We have a two party system and people pick and choose which candidate they will support. For me it is not about being republican or democrat and all the rhetoric that goes along with it, but who I personally feel is better able to handle the job. I dislike innuendos, half-truths, slander and avoidance by either candidate. So when someone call  another person a 'liar', provide the truth!  Liking one or the other is a personal choice, but repeating political rhetoric I find distasteful.

Those that slander, make up gossip(innuendo) are no different than the liar in Gods eye.....or so the NT tells me!

[CoAspen]

If lying is to keep someone out of the WH or any other office......I reckon we would not have a government! Me thinks most people have little understanding of what it takes to run the government. I would suggest that much untruth is used in the daily operations with the nations of the world. I doubt Americans would want the gov to tell everything it is doing to friend or enemy when asked. We feel it would be okay to lie in some instances but not in others. Even Christians lack consistency! 

[bonnie]

Funny how such piety can rear it's head when the so called slander or gossip is about a liberal,yet I recall several of those here that abhor slander and gossip climbed on that train concerning Herman Cain. As far as I know the "slander" concerning Herman Cain was a lot less provable than the dishonesty of Hillary Clinton.

 

What a difference in tone when the topic is Hillary Clinton,the smartest woman ever with all her experience doesn't know the difference between e-mails marked classified and papers in alphabetical order.  This highly qualified woman can't even remember her security briefings or that she received a subpoena  for her emails. If she isn't lying she is completely ignorant and unqualified for the position she wants to hold.

I haven't looked lately concerning Trump but so far I think most accusations against him are unproven in a court of law so should fall into the  slander and gossip level. I suspect a lot of it may be true or somewhat true but this concerns those awful people that are being judged for seeing something different than you do concerning Hillary Clinton

[aka]

15 hours ago, Aubrey said:

Some Americans are truly awful people.

My sentiments also 

[Tom Wetmore]

As well illustrated by comments above, the double standard of sexism takes over and the thinnest of accusations, labels and broad generalizations easily turn people against the woman seeking to break the gender glass ceiling or going where no or few woman has gone before.  On the other hand the level of proof for the man has to be a criminal conviction with time served in prison. Credible reports are doubted or explained or just plain ignored.  The amount of truly bad conduct by Trump that just gets overlooked or tolerated that we have audio and video of him doing and saying is just astounding.  As I have said over and over, for every unsubstatiated accusation leveled against Hillary that ends with little or no evidence against her, there are multiple documented incidents of Trump actually doing or saying far worse.  But the false accusations against Hillary persist while he gets a pass.  I watch and read news coverage from a wide variety of sources and the so called liberal bias of mainstream media is simply untrue.  They are all competing for the same headlines and attention grabbing story lines.  The much criticized recent joint forum of the candidates was by NBC, one of the key so called mainstream news media with a liberal bias.  The bias was very clearly not liberal.  The transparency issue over her health is a great example. For her that is a crisis regardless of the seriousness, or lack of it. Yet Trump simple has a crazy letter that is accepted and little effort to press him to come clean about his own health record.  And tax returns, worse discrepancy in what is tolerated.

As CoAspen said, strong sentiment against Hillary is expressed in broad generalizations, negative labels or invectives. But when asked for specifics many are hard pressed to give specific evidence to back up their hatred of her.  The repeated rhetoric at Trump rallies that she is a criminal is a great example.  I recently confronted a woman friend repeating the heated label that Hillary is a criminal. When I asked for what she meant, what crime Hillary had been even been tried for or convicted of - nothing of course.  Just the repeat of  the belief that she has just not been caught.  

The comparison of the broad charges against the Clinton Foundation with the clear and documented evidence of self dealing resulting in a fine being paid by the Trump Foundation. There is just no end, but nobody seems to care are pay attention...

Edited September 14, 2016 by Tom Wetmore
Typo corrections

[CoAspen]

An other example=Recent forum-Trumps many answers: obfuscation the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible: Labeled Great/Good

                                                        Clintons most answers: clarify make clear, shed/throw light on, elucidate, illuminate; explain, explicate, define, spell out, clear up: Labeled inadequate/too long
 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Frankly, I would have a difficult time trying to convince myself to vote for Hillary.  And it has nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman.

And I think Bonnie has a point.  Can you imagine the utter and sheer magnitude of uproar and incense if Republicans placed statues around the country of a naked senior citizen Hillary Clinton showing the fall of gravity on various body parts of her less-than-svelte figure?  The Democrats thought the naked statues of Trump were outstandingly funny.  But it's not so funny when one would be hoisted on one's own petards. 

I may not be one of the country's "deplorables," but I find it just as disgusting for *either* side to argue that their candidate should be chosen on the basis of their genitalia.  Voting for Clinton because she's a woman who would break a political glass ceiling is as ridiculous as voting for Obama simply because he was half black.  Vote for the people you think would do the best job!

[bonnie]

6 hours ago, aka said:

My sentiments also 

That is certainly true. How fortunate that some have found a country to live in that has a absence of truly awful people

 

[bonnie]

On September 13, 2016 at 8:27 AM, Tom Wetmore said:

As well illustrated by comments above, the double standard of sexism takes over and the thinnest of accusations, labels and broad generalizations easily turn people against the woman seeking to break the gender glass ceiling or going where no or few woman has gone before.  

Standard accusations for any that disagree ,must be racist or sexist as there isn't any explanation for not supporting the candidate that some have chosen to support. Always someone besides Hillary Clinton to blame

There are some that think it is a sign of a highly qualified and honest  candidate that doesn't when someone with the experience of Hillary Clinton hasn't a clue or claims she doesn't what C means on a document. Claiming she thought it meant alphabetical order is an insult to anyone that has two brain cells to rub together.

 

Quote

...  On the other hand the level of proof for the man has to be a criminal conviction with time served in prison. Credible reports are doubted or explained or just plain ignored.  The amount of truly bad conduct by Trump that just get overlooked or tolerated that we have audio and video of him doing and saying is just astounding.  As I have said over and over, every unsubstatiated accusation leveled against Hillary that ends with little or no evidence against her, there are multiple documented incidents of Trump actually doing or saying far worse.  But the false accusations against Hillary persist while he gets a pass.  

This is absurd. Countless male politicians have had their political careers ruined with far less accusations and questionable activities. On the other hand the level of proof for the man has to be a criminal conviction with time served in prison.  

Tom ,you set the bar for objection to Hillary Clinton

This article hasn't a thing to do with Donald Trump,it is finding others to blame for the now uncertainty of a Clinton win. Trump hasn't anything to do with why many of us find Clinton totally objectionable.  Finding Clinton less than desirable for President does not mean that Trump suddenly s become a paragon of  virture.

 

Quote

...   The much criticized recent joint forum of the candidates was by NBC, one of the key so called mainstream news media with a liberal bias.  The bias was very clearly not liberal.  

Your opinion as you are entitled. I didn't watch it so have no idea,but not everyone that disagrees with the political viewpoint you push is wrong, sexist or deplorable. Not everyone outside of your circle has the same confidence in the rightness of your opinion and accusations

 

Quote

 

The transparency issue over her health is a great example. For her that is a crisis regardless of the seriousness, or lack of it. Yet Trump simple has a crazy letter that is accepted and little effort to press him to come clean about his own health record.  And tax returns, worse discrepancy in what is tolerated.

 

Hillary Clinton's health has been at issue for sometime. Not always without cause.  Trumps physical health has not been at issue. If it were I think you would see the same response. When you read the e-mails that were on her server and the caution on one to make sure Clinton understood because she is easily confused and other incidences might be to those deplorable's a signal that something isn't quite right here. 

Yes the tax returns should be returned and Trump has been criticized for that.

 

Quote

As CoAspen said, strong sentiment against Hillary is expressed in broad generalizations, negative labels or invectives. But when asked for specifics many are hard pressed to give specific evidence to back up their hatred of her.  The repeated rhetoric at Trump rallies that she is a criminal is a great example.  I recently confronted a woman repeating the heated label that Hillary is a criminal. When I asked for what she meant, what crime Hillary had been even tried for or convicted of - nothing of course.  Just the repeat of she has just not been caught.  

The comparison of the broad charges against the Climton Foundation with the clear and documented evidence of self dealing, resulting in a fine being paid by the Trump Foundation. There is just no end, but nobody seems to care are pay attention...

Much like the criteria Tom, you use to condemn Trump.  To believe as some do literally hundreds of people over a decade have to band together and tell the same half truths and lies to persecute this couple of honesty and virture for decades. 

The fine that was paid by Trump was done with the very same type of excuse or explanation Clinton gives for everything.  What makes one believable and the other not? 

A male politician would not withstand the accusations,dealings that at the very least are shady dealings going back decades,her lie and yes it can't be anything else that she thought C meant alphabetical order. Email cautioning   to make sure Hillary understood  as she was easily confused. Not remembering a number of security briefings,claiming she did not receive a subpoena when her attorney says ,Yes she did.  That is current and does not make her look to honest or qualified.

To support Hillary Clinton by calling into question the motives of those that won't vote for her doesn't make her look better.

There are those that will vote Trump because of their distaste for Clinton,there are those that will vote Clinton because of their distaste for Trump. Then there are those that will vote for the least objectionable. 

If and that is a mighty big IF I vote,it could not be Clinton. Voting Trump is another big IF. Not based on the bar you have set

Edited September 14, 2016 by Tom Wetmore
Fixed quoting to separate poster's comments...

[bonnie]

 

Doesn't matter what I might believe but just substitute the name Clinton and Clinton supporters would be all over this as another in the persecution of the Clintons. Trump of course is guilty. Not in support of Trump by the way. Just have a thing about situational ethics

 

Donald Trump Quietly Paid A Fine To The IRS For Potentially Bribing Florida’s Attorney General

BY: CHRIS ZOIS 09.03.16  •  

 

The Washington Post reports that Donald Trump covertly paid a fine to the Internal Revenue Service for potentially trying to bribe Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. The penalty stems from Trump’s charitable foundation, which reportedly violated a tax law by giving a political donation to a campaign group affiliated with Bondi, who — incidentally — has had her time in the spotlight of late.

The $2,500 tax penalty was paid after the Donald J. Trump Foundation did not list a $25,000 donation in 2013 to a political group affiliated with Bondi. Instead, the Foundation’s tax documents listed the donation to a Kansas-based group with a name similar to the Bondi one. The pro-Bondi group was called And Justice for All, while the Wichita-based nonprofit that supposedly received the donation is called Justice for All. The Foundation said this was a mistake, but The Post reported the situation came on the heels of Bondipossibly investigating fraud allegations against Trump University. Bondi ultimately did not pursue the investigation. The Kansas nonprofit said it had never received any sort of donation from The Foundation.

The Trump organization said it was unaware of the mistake until The Post and liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington started to investigate the donation earlier this year. Jeffrey McConney, senior vice president and controller at the Trump Organization, said once they had heard about the mistake, Trump filed paperwork with the IRS informing them of the donation and paid the fine. McConney chalked it up to a simple error:

“It was just an honest mistake. It wasn’t done intentionally to hide a political donation, it was just an error. We’ve done what [we] were instructed to do.”

The Post reports that the IRS has declined to comment on the situation, but Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington said the Foundation needs to adhere to IRS rules, which would be to try to get the money back. The Associated Press reports that Bondi tried to give the donation back, but her efforts were rejected.

(

 

 

[Bravus]

For what it's worth, I and many others on the Left deplored the 'naked Trump' statues.

His policies are the issue, and bodyshaming is both off topic and a bad thing in itself.

[CoAspen]

Quote

........... but I find it just as disgusting for *either* side to argue that their candidate should be chosen on the basis of their genitalia.  Voting for Clinton because she's a woman who would break a political glass ceiling is as ridiculous as voting for Obama simply because he was half black.  Vote for the people you think would do the best job!

Absolutely!!!

[phkrause]

5 hours ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

 may not be one of the country's "deplorables," but I find it just as disgusting for *either* side to argue that their candidate should be chosen on the basis of their genitalia.  Voting for Clinton because she's a woman who would break a political glass ceiling is as ridiculous as voting for Obama simply because he was half black.  Vote for the people you think would do the best job!

I am in agreement!

[Bravus]

I agree. But sometimes 'merit' reflects unconscious biases. A previous (recent) Australian government had 19 men and one woman in Cabinet, but the claim was it was selected on 'merit'. I don't think that talent is actually distributed that unevenly in the human population... even talent for one specific thing.

[Bravus]

If she is elected, President Hillary Clinton will be Number 45... and the first woman. 

[Tom Wetmore]

Not necessarily a gender bias issue, although now in context it is hard to avoid seeing this way is the subject of a recent commentary I read.  The point was that in an apparent effort to give equal coverage the major news outlets spend time covering both candidates from the pool of attention grabbing things currently happening.  That gives the obvious advantage to Trump who offers up a virtual never ending flood of stuff to choose from.  To fill the time there is little need to go deep or even repeatedly cover the same stuff.  But with Clinton, there is less volume of stuff to grab viewer attention with, so to the time you get more detail and probing the same stories over and over.  Nobody seems interested in covering the important, just what grabs attention.  And Trump is a master at grabbing the headlines day after day with drivel and nonsense.  

On the naked statues, not funny.  But a little perspective.  Obviously a sensational headline grabber.  But not pervasive or a long lasting thing.  But if you follow the Trump campaign, that anti Hillary signs and the hucksters at every rally and on the internet selling truly disgusting and hateful Tshirts, signs and other stuff like that is pervasive and just a regular part of the environment around his events. 

[aka]

If she's not elected then apparently she is out of a job.

I suggest Tom Wetmore carry on with his loving advocacy for female Hillary.

Start a correspondence with her.

Invite her to join the Seventh-day Adventists.

Afterwards....

Get her to work as an Evangelist. She has great qualifications to do the job well.

Or..... 

Use your influence to get her a position as preacher-minister of a big Washington D.C. church.

 

 

[Tom Wetmore]

One example, on just one day, in the uneven coverage of the campaigns... 

http://www.motherjones.com/media/2016/09/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-pneumonia-cnbc-interview 

Obsessing about the only thing happening with Clinton, her pneumonia, which turns out to be not so serious a case of it anyway.  Walking pneumonia.  Endless rounds of speculation.  And the only thing that gets reported from Trump is the one, actually positive thing, he says among a whole laundry list of stuff that should alarm at least a few and get some in depth attention.

 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

There must be a difference in what gets reported around the country.  Locally here, there's virtually nothing but positive reporting about Hillary Clinton, and nothing but negative about Donald Trump.  And next to nothing about the Libertarian and Green Party candidates.

The media really controls elections, making it very difficult to separate what's true from what is pure bombastic boo-hissing.  What I'd really love would be to sit down and converse in person with the candidates.  

[Tom Wetmore]

21 hours ago, bonnie said:

 

Doesn't matter what I might believe but just substitute the name Clinton and Clinton supporters would be all over this as another in the persecution of the Clintons. Trump of course is guilty. Not in support of Trump by the way. Just have a thing about situational ethics

 

Donald Trump Quietly Paid A Fine To The IRS For Potentially Bribing Florida’s Attorney General

BY: CHRIS ZOIS 09.03.16  •  

 

The Washington Post reports that Donald Trump covertly paid a fine to the Internal Revenue Service for potentially trying to bribe Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. The penalty stems from Trump’s charitable foundation, which reportedly violated a tax law by giving a political donation to a campaign group affiliated with Bondi, who — incidentally — has had her time in the spotlight of late.

The $2,500 tax penalty was paid after the Donald J. Trump Foundation did not list a $25,000 donation in 2013 to a political group affiliated with Bondi. Instead, the Foundation’s tax documents listed the donation to a Kansas-based group with a name similar to the Bondi one. The pro-Bondi group was called And Justice for All, while the Wichita-based nonprofit that supposedly received the donation is called Justice for All. The Foundation said this was a mistake, but The Post reported the situation came on the heels of Bondipossibly investigating fraud allegations against Trump University. Bondi ultimately did not pursue the investigation. The Kansas nonprofit said it had never received any sort of donation from The Foundation.

The Trump organization said it was unaware of the mistake until The Post and liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington started to investigate the donation earlier this year. Jeffrey McConney, senior vice president and controller at the Trump Organization, said once they had heard about the mistake, Trump filed paperwork with the IRS informing them of the donation and paid the fine. McConney chalked it up to a simple error:

“It was just an honest mistake. It wasn’t done intentionally to hide a political donation, it was just an error. We’ve done what [we] were instructed to do.”

The Post reports that the IRS has declined to comment on the situation, but Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington said the Foundation needs to adhere to IRS rules, which would be to try to get the money back. The Associated Press reports that Bondi tried to give the donation back, but her efforts were rejected.

(

 

 

Really though, the big difference is that this story has taken a very long time to get media attention, to get any traction. For weeks now secondary sources have been on this story of Trump's alleged bribing of Bondi and illegally using his foundation to hide it.  But few of the large news networks have given it more than a passing reference until recently. And it is distinctly  something real and serious.  As compared to the instantaneous and sustained coverage of nothing of any real substance in terms of wrong doing or scandal or corruption about the Clinton Foundation.  Continuing to beat on Clinton over nothing really does seem like persecution. 

NBC did just headline it, but only after the NY Attorney General announced opening an investigation of Trump's Foundation.  Since it is a NY based private foundation, it is properly within its jurisdiction to do so. State attorney generals have regulatory and legal compliance oversight responsibility for nonprofits within their state.  The IRS is not commenting because legally they cannot do so.  But it would not surprise me if the IRS is not finished with this.

This is important and significant.  There are too many missteps for this to have been a simple honest mistake, or clerical error.  And the explanations really don't quite add up.  This appears to be just one example of the way Trump has been using his foundation for similar self dealing.  Like using the foundation to buy a painting for $20,000 of himself at a charity auction.  Or reporting donations that never happened or that really were't from him as he claimed.  

Not trying to toot my own horn on this, but this is an issue within my area of legal expertise.  I am just saying that so you understand that I do know what I am talking about on this issue.

 

[Tom Wetmore]

And then there is this opinion that does have a point...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-did-clinton-hide-her-pneumonia-because-shes-a-woman/2016/09/13/e3e9f538-79cf-11e6-bd86-b7bbd53d2b5d_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b&utm_term=.ecf7d8f387be