The case for endorsing Hillary to be the next president...

October 14, 2016

Clear eyed, well stated...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-for-president/2016/10/12/665f9698-8caf-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html?utm_term=.c889ef3956f6

October 14, 2016

A lot to consider.

While it endorses Clinton, it does not consider her to be perfect.

October 14, 2016

When read in conjunction with their detailed closing argument about Trump, the choice is unequivocal.

October 14, 2016

9 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

When read in conjunction with their detailed closing argument about Trump, the choice is unequivocal.

And you decide for everyone? All must view Hillary Clinton as you do?

October 14, 2016

:reyes:

5 hours ago, bonnie said:

And you decide for everyone? All must view Hillary Clinton as you do?

Why do you have to always twist everything like that!?!?! Do you even read anything before you blast away? If you even read just my simple sentence and stopped to think about what it clearly was referring to, you might have actually been slightly restrained from automatically and mistakenly taking it personally and assuming it was about you or even addressed to you, as you seem so adept at doing much of the time. If you don't want to read it, just skip the thread and refrain from commenting. You do not have to weigh in on every topic. And really, why would anything I post be any more intent on insisting anyone think and decide as I do any more than whatever you post is deciding that everyone must take your POV? Especially with what little POV of mine is even expressed by me above?

Here, let me try to explain it to you...

"When read in conjunction..." There are just two posts preceding mine, both unambiguously referring to only one thing. The linked endorsement by the Washington Post. I didn't write it. I just posted it for others to read and consider, just as Gregory apparently did. My only comment was, that I found it to be clear eyed, meaning it was not blind to Clinton's faults and shortcomings, tending to show some objectivity often lacking in much of the political discourse here and in the media. The other simple point was that I found it to be well stated, in other words, well written. It was not really stating my own POV about Hillary. (Because, remember I didn't write it.) That was just how I read it. That is why I thought it good to post a well written and clear eyed assessment of her for others to read and consider.

"...in conjunction with their [the Washington Post editors, reporters and contributors... not me] closing argument about Trump..." If you had just taken a few minutes to read before you blasted away with you ill-founded bitter snarkiness, you would have immediately recognized that reference as being about the clearly linked (twice in fact) extended summary of the Post's assessment of Donald Trump. It is very thorough.

"...the choice is unequivocal." What choice? What is this topic about? Just read the title. Open the link and read that title. It is about the choice of the Washington Post to endorse Hillary Clinton. It is not about my choice. Or yours. It is about their endorsement of Hillary. While the linked article is about her, it makes reference obviously to Trump, but mostly points the reader to their closing argument about him for the details about their conclusion about him.

So let me clarify this for you. Reading the endorsement alone, it is clear regarding their choice to endorse Hillary. But include reading their closing argument about Trump leaves no doubt about their choice between the two. No equivocation. It is abundantly clear how and why the editors of the Washington post made their choice to endorse Hillary.

You don't have to agree. Nor make a similar choice. But do so with the most complete information from reliable sources. That is why I posted it.

October 14, 2016

1 hour ago, Tom Wetmore said:

When read in conjunction with their detailed closing argument about Trump, the choice is unequivocal.

Vocabulary.com Sign InSign Up
PLAY
LOOK UP

LISTS
Vocabulary.com DictionaryAdvanced Search List Builder Random Word
unequivocal
If there is no doubt about it, it's unequivocal. An unequivocal response to a marriage proposal? "Yes. Yes! A thousand times yes!"
Tasty Morsels
List of the Week: Learn Latin Roots!
Learn five new Vocabulary Lists focused on Latin roots "vocare," "portare," "sci," "struere," and "via."
Continue reading...
Equivocal is from a Latin word meaning of equal voice, so unequivocal means of unequal voice — unmistakable, unambiguous, without question. There might be unequivocal evidence tying a suspect to a crime, or unequivocal support for a popular leader. If you explain something in unequivocal terms, then your words should be clear to everyone.
Start learning this word

unequivocal
admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding; having only one meaning or interpretation and leading to only one conclusion

On the topic of Hillary what is the choice that is unequivocal.

October 15, 2016

35 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Well you are deciding for everyone too

Nope I asked a question about shifting attitudes. Why is smutty speech more offensive than smutty behavior to those here and the american public.Absolutely nothing about a unequivocal choice and that choice is Trump.

October 15, 2016

15 minutes ago, bonnie said:

Nope I asked a question about shifting attitudes. Why is smutty speech more offensive than smutty behavior to those here and the american public.Absolutely nothing about a unequivocal choice and that choice is Trump.

No you didn't. You didn't read before you just reacted. If you had read and gave it any thought you would understand.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink...

October 15, 2016

37 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

No you didn't. You didn't read before you just reacted. If you had read and gave it any thought you would understand.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink...

Nope,have been asking the same question since these topics of Clintons vs Trumps integrity has been an issue. I have not made any attempt whatsoever to decide for anyone who to vote for. I don't agree with the shifting attitude to determine the fitness of someone for the presidency.

And yes Tom I read it,but because I don't swallow it you claim I haven't as if I did I would certainly understand. Understand what?

That you agree with the Washington Post and appreciate that opinion piece? As usual the old standby that has never failed,all those unfounded accusations against Hillary Clinton. Many don't believe that anymore than they believe all accusations against Trump are unfounded.

An opinion piece from a source that endorses Hillary Clinton? That is their choice,it is also my choice as to whether or not I agree.

I belong to several online forums pertaining to my embroidery business. Each has a private political forum.Most there are really having a difficult time with this election.They are neither stupid,nominal christians or racists in their concerns.

Part of it is the shifting attitude,not the actions of a man not running for office.

Obamacare and Hillary Clinton is another big concern. Many know what this "you have to vote for it before you can read it" has done. Clinton was a strong supporter if I recall. A young couple in our neighborhood just had their first baby. Wife has insurance thru work. Her portion with the baby will now cost them over a 1,000.00 a month and sky high co-pays. He has been forced to take a part time job to be able to take that hit. It is a disaster and many worry about a potential president that promoted it as a great idea. Maybe she didn't read it before she voted for it, but those of us that were being sold on affordable knew what was coming.

Medicare recipients were told they would not be affected. That is another Ha Ha. Our supplemental with much higher co-pays will soon be out of our reach.

Immigration is another concern for many. Here on C/A that means racists and bigots. To others it means a stop to the disruptions of business,numerous lawsuits for discriminations after the job has been explained and accepted, neighborhoods with families being terrorized in their homes ,threatened with rape of their wives ,children, and other fun things. Many of the mosques are a front for recruiting extremists and people fear for themselves and their families. I live in a small town of about 11,000. In the past I would never have had any concern or fought the building of a mosque in our town. Now I would, and I am sure that means I am a racist/bigot. But I know what is happening with these harmless houses of worship just 35 miles east. I don't want it here. Hillary has said the same as Trump but of course she was not labeled a racist. Shifting attitudes again .I believe she even voted to build a border wall.

The e-mail controversy concerns them a lot. I know you consider it nothing and that is your right. Others do not swallow her excuse of incompetence. And that is the least of what many voters believe. Incompetence to the point of the FBI claiming she was extremely careless is not the same comforting thought to others.

That is just a few of the overall concerns,balancing the actions of a woman they do not trust with what they feel is a good reason and a man they don't trust for other reasons but does speak to the concerns they have for themselves and families.

HIllary had a great opportunity as first lady for eight years,then a senator to influence the direction of what she moans about now. She didn't do much but she did vote for the border wall that she now condemns Trump for. Attitude shift.

She has railed on Trump for his stance on the Iraq war,Why? She voted for it as numerous democrats did. The need to do something was being addressed in her husband's presidency.

At that time Trump was a private citizen and who gives a fig what he thought of it,he didn't have a vote or say so.

It all centers around character and integrity and that is in mighty short supply in both. That you don't agree is fine,just as it should be fine for those that that have an opposing view.

October 15, 2016

7 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Yes. You are deciding for everyone by manning these types of topics day and night...as in minutes after each poster comments negatives you dont like your posting goes the low ground in "moral response" rebukes to anyone for even the slightest reasons you think they oppose you. It looks like your "embroidery forums" are influencing much of what you write here. Thats too bad because I thought I was listening to just you. Now I have a headache. My original concern has not yet been answered. How on earth do you know all the news links u prprovide ousl: a L et us know if you were in all the bedrooms and actually did see all the smut you. are tooting out You have no way of guarantee that any of the sex ac cusations did took place

David,can you give it a rest. I do not single you out for one personal attack after another. I am not going to melt into a puddle and need a safe house but your role as designated or self designated protector is getting a bit much.

For some reason this is being allowed when others have been banned for same. How I spend my time isn't your business. No I was not present and neither was anyone for the same attacks on Trump. That is the point.Again,no I can't. Neither can anyone

Quote

You u have no way of guarantee that any of the sex ac cusations did took place. (I and others here are in agreement) that you simply cannot prove any of what you are accusing politicions of and then deciding for everyone who did not mmoral outrage the way you pronounce they should. We dont have to express it the way tou say because you are not the fly on the wall watc hing all these lewd thong or other alleged lewd actions so you are asking to us to asc ribe to hate mongering, satanic rumor mogering and. Angst against everyone seemst to be all I can do to be on your side. You are agaist things not proven. The newest Trump video is not even real. Its a heavily edited fake. and cannot be believed.I would ac tually be very diligent in hiding my children from you.too I dont want them exposed to all that sex stuff that you have the fixation on and hoot away about in every post?

No I can't. Neither can anyone prove any of the accusations coming out of the woodwork concerning Trump. Since I have not ask anyone to express it in a certain way,I have asked why. The below is true of Trump as well.You and others here were not a fly on the wall concerning Trump, but do you ascribe to hate mongering, satanic rumor mogering

We dont have to express it the way tou say because you are not the fly on the wall watc hing all these lewd thong or other alleged lewd actions so you are asking to us to asc ribe to hate mongering, satanic rumor mogering and. Angst against everyone seemst to be all I can do to be on your side. You are agaist things not proven. The newest Trump video is not even real

I haven't see the Trump ad,nor have I seen the latest Clinton ad,not interested nor will I go looking for it.

Now please can you end the personal attacks until such a time as I attack you repeatedly. This is reminiscent of some time ago

October 15, 2016

My dearly beloved late husband was a psychiatrist/psychoanalyst. He told me once the diagnosis for someone who believes he/she is the focal point of every argument, every event. I just wish I could recall the name of that diagnosis. It would fit one of the parties in this thread.

October 15, 2016

49 minutes ago, Jeannieb43 said:

My dearly beloved late husband was a psychiatrist/psychoanalyst. He told me once the diagnosis for someone who believes he/she is the focal point of every argument, every event. I just wish I could recall the name of that diagnosis. It would fit one of the parties in this thread.

Interesting post Jeannie. Did your beloved late husband have a name for shifting attitudes,absolving one and condemning the other? We do in our family.

Wanderer has come at me numerous times on the attack. I have never singled him out in any way except to respond to him.

A couple of others have instead of what should be a simple answer have decided to focus it back on me.

I have the same attitude over the smutty behavior of both men,others here have to different attitudes. One was deserving of a second term,the other is unfit for the presidency.

Obviously you must see that as perfectly acceptable,That is your right. I don't. I see the identical character present in both.

While Bill Clinton is not running for office the attitude towards his disgusting behavior that kept him in the White House has now shifted to Oh My,we can't have that in the White House.

October 15, 2016

Only one came close to answering. That OP does not believe any of Clinton"s accusers are credible,they were all ? consensual affairs and therefore no one's business.. Even in view of Paula JOnes lawsuit and settlement It appears that Trump's accusers while he was a private citizen are believed and are credible and everyone's business.

October 16, 2016

For those who believe in principle from a higher source, this lends credence to refraining from votine for anyone at all.

Had an interview with Martha Byington [
Martha Dormer Amadon (née Byington)].113 Cut out a dress. We were perplexed; took it all to pieces and made it over. Spent the afternoon with [Mary] Loughborough; attended meeting in the eve. Had quite a free, interesting meeting. After it was time to close, the subject of voting was considered and dwelt upon. James first talked, then Brother Andrews talked, and it was thought by them best to give their influence in favor of right and against wrong. They think it right to vote in favor of temperance men being in office in our city, instead of—by their silence—running the risk of having men of non-temperance put in office. Brother Hewitt [David Hewitt]114 told his experience of a few days, and is settled that it is right to cast his vote. Brother Hart talked well. Brother Lyon [Henry Lyon] opposed. No other objected to voting, but Brother Kellogg [John Preston Kellogg] begins to feel that it is right. Pleasant feelings exist among all the brethren. Oh, that they may all act in the fear of God. Men of intemperance have been in the office today, in a flattering manner expressing their approbation of the course of Sabbathkeepers in not voting, and expressing hope that they will stick to their course and, like the Quakers, not cast their vote. Satan and his evil angels are busy at this time and he has a work upon the earth. May Satan be disappointed, is my prayer.115 {1EGWLM 607.2}

God is Love!~Jesus saves! :prayer: :offtobed:

October 16, 2016

56 minutes ago, LifeHiscost said:

113 Cut out a dress. We were perplexed; took it all to pieces and made it over. Spent the afternoon with [Mary] Loughborough; attended meeting in the eve. Had quite a free, interesting meeting. After it was time to close, the subject of voting was considered and dwelt upon. James first talked, then Brother Andrews talked, and it was thought by them best to give their influence in favor of right and against wrong. They think it right to vote in favorof temperance men being in office in our city, instead of—by their silence—running the risk of having men of non-temperance put in office. Brother Hewitt [David Hewitt]114 told his experience of a few days, and is settled that it is right to cast his vote. Brother Hart talked well. Brother Lyon [Henry Lyon] opposed. No other objected to voting, but Brother Kellogg [John Preston Kellogg] begins to feel that it is right. Pleasant feelings exist among all the brethren. Oh, that they may all act in thefear of God. Men of intemperance have been in the office today, in a flattering manner expressing their approbation of thecourse of Sabbathkeepers in not voting, and expressing hope that they will stick to their course and, like the Quakers, not cast their vote. Satan and his evil angels are busy at this time and he has a work upon the earth. May Satan be disappointed, is my prayer.115 {1EGWLM 607.2}

Maybe I'm not reading the quote correctly, but it seems that this is actually *endorsing* the act of voting.

October 16, 2016

hmmmm...

October 16, 2016

18 hours ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

Maybe I'm not reading the quote correctly, but it seems that this is actually *endorsing* the act of voting.

I agree. I was sleepy and that wasn't the quote I had originally been searching for. The one I had in mind doesn't actually say one shouldn't vote but that one is partially responsible for the evil/good the person voted in contributes. I wonder how many people regretted their vote when Adolf Hitler, in a democratic Christian society was ultimately found one of the most despotic dictators of modern society, responsible for

O

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Wikipedia Over 60 million people were killed, which was about 3% of the 1940 world population (est. 2.3 billion). The tables below give a detailed country-by-country count of human losses. World War II fatality statistics vary, with estimates of total dead ranging from 50 million to more than 80 million.

October 16, 2016

Image result

October 17, 2016

1 hour ago, LifeHiscost said:

I agree. I was sleepy and that wasn't the quote I had originally been searching for. The one I had in mind doesn't actually say one shouldn't vote but that one is partially responsible for the evil/good the person voted in contributes. I wonder how many people regretted their vote when Adolf Hitler, in a democratic Christian society was ultimately found one of the most despotic dictators of modern society, responsible for

All you can do is to pay attention to what the candidates say and more importantly their actions and make your decision based on that. This go around it is trying to decide who is the most corrupt

October 18, 2016

Is there no end to the sewage in our present culture, perhaps only recently revealed.

[q

Why am I telling you this? I’m sure you can guess. There’s a lot of talk about sexism and sexual assault recently because of tapes released about Donald Trump and several women who have never spoken before—some in more than 30 years—telling their stories of how he sexually assaulted them.

I don’t know whether their stories are true. If he’s guilty and found to be so in a court of law, then I hope he’s punished. I do wonder, however, why his accusers never mentioned these things when NBC hired Trump to be on national television. I wonder why they never mentioned it when he stepped into politics years ago. I wonder why they never mentioned it during the primaries. I wonder why they never mentioned it until October, just before the election.

Was it just because they felt some freedom to do so because of the “Access Hollywood” tape? Maybe, but the timing still seems odd to me. It all seems so—how shall I put it—choreographed.

But who am I to accuse possible assault victims of lying or playing political games? I don’t know their motives or the truth of their stories. I will say that having been a victim of unwanted sexual advances and assault, I do have a sense of when women are telling the truth about such matters.

I also have a keen sensitivity to the hypocrisy of those who say they care deeply about women who have suffered in this way—hypocrites like Michelle Obama. Honestly, I don’t know who’s worse. A man who sexually abuses a woman, or a woman who uses another woman who has been sexually abused, creating another layer of abuse. Part of me says it’s the latter.

Why the Selective Emotion?

Last week, Michelle gave a speech in which she said she feels the pain of sexual assault victims “so personally.” Like the fine actress she is, her voice trembled. “I can’t stop thinking about this,” she said. “It has shaken me to my core in a way that I couldn’t have predicted.”

So while I’d love nothing more than to pretend like this isn’t happening, and to come out here and do my normal campaign speech, it would be dishonest and disingenuous to me to just move on to the next thing like this was all just a bad dream.

But Michelle Obama is being dishonest and disingenuous. She supports a woman who has viciously attacked women who say they were the victims of her husband’s sexual deviancy. They are no different than the women coming forward now, except their stories have stood the test of time, and have been corroborated. Yet they get no sympathy from Michelle and Hillary, only scorn and ridicule.

Worse, Michelle proves her disingenuousness by having supported a man who was not only sexually immoral but played a part in a woman’s death. In 1969, U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy left a party late one evening with 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne. Kennedy drove the car instead of his chauffeur so he could be alone with the young woman. As he was driving down the dark road, he made a wrong turn and drove the car off a bridge into the tide-swept water below.

Kennedy made it out and swam to shore. Kopechne didn’t. He never called the police that night, and instead slinked back to his hotel room. The young woman died of suffocation when the air-pocket she was in ran out of oxygen. If he had done what was right, she might be alive today.

Despite this history, Michelle and her husband embraced the senator, benefitting from his political support. She never felt any personal grief over Mary Jo Kopechne. She never shuddered when Kennedy put his arm around her as they celebrated political victories together.

The same is true for the alleged victims of Bill Clinton. Michelle apparently never felt shaken by what happened to Juanita Broaddrick, who testified that Clinton attacked her, biting her lip to keep her quiet, then pushing her onto a bed and raping her. Michelle has expressed no empathy for her, even though there were witnesses to Broaddrick’s injuries.

Michelle never claims to have trembled for Paula Jones, who said Clinton pulled her “over like he has done this a million times and grabs me and pulls me over to him to the windowsill and tries to kiss me.” He then dropped his pants.

Then he started — he pulled me over to him while he was leaning up against the wingback chair and he took his hands and was running them up my culottes. And they were long. They were down to my knees. They were long, dressy culottes. And he had his hand up, going up to my middle pelvic area, and he was kissing me on the neck, you know, and trying to kiss me on the lips and I wouldn’t let him. And then I backed back. I said, ‘Stop it. You know, I’m not this kind of girl.’

Where is Michelle’s outrage for Jones? Why does she support the Clintons, who have maligned this woman for years? Does she tremble at the thought of it? Has it shaken her to her core?

Where is Michelle’s disgust for her husband’s indecent exposure—a criminal act? Unlike Trump, he’s caught on tape actually committing the crime! Despite the giggles of the women on the plane, is this not a sexual violation? At the very least it’s a sexual perversion.

My president should be nothing like the man who stood before me all those years ago in saggy sweatpants, with an erection and a wicked grin, filling me with panic and shame. Seeing the video of Obama on that plane brought back that moment and those feelings for me, making me relive it all over again. Does Michelle tremble for me?

Pretending to Care about Victims Is Merely Manipulation

So what about Trump? Can a woman like me, who knows firsthand what it’s like to be sexually abused by a man, vote for him? I’m one of the women Michelle says she feels for. She says she understands my pain.

The truth is, she knows nothing of my feelings, my pain, or my shame. Her words are full of manipulation, using women who have suffered for her own purposes. In a way, she’s no different from the predatorial men who use women like objects to feed their own lusts. For Michelle—and Hillary—it’s lust for power, and they’ll use anyone to get it—even women like me.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/17/im-sexual-assault-victim-still-supports-trump/

“Yes, I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus! 21The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all the saints. Amen.… Revelation 22

God is Love!~Jesus saves!

October 18, 2016

15 minutes ago, LifeHiscost said:

I also have a keen sensitivity to the hypocrisy of those who say they care deeply about women who have suffered in this way—hypocrites like Michelle Obama. Honestly, I don’t know who’s worse. A man who sexually abuses a woman, or a woman who uses another woman who has been sexually abused, creating another layer of abuse. Part of me says it’s the latter.

Why the Selective Emotion?

Last week, Michelle gave a speech in which she said she feels the pain of sexual assault victims “so personally.” Like the fine actress she is, her voice trembled. “I can’t stop thinking about this,” she said. “It has shaken me to my core in a way that I couldn’t have predicted.”

So while I’d love nothing more than to pretend like this isn’t happening, and to come out here and do my normal campaign speech, it would be dishonest and disingenuous to me to just move on to the next thing like this was all just a bad dream.

But Michelle Obama is being dishonest and disingenuous. She supports a woman who has viciously attacked women who say they were the victims of her husband’s sexual deviancy. They are no different than the women coming forward now, except their stories have stood the test of time, and have been corroborated. Yet they get no sympathy from Michelle and Hillary, only scorn and ridicule.

Worse, Michelle proves her disingenuousness by having supported a man who was not only sexually immoral but played a part in a woman’s death. In 1969, U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy left a party late one evening with 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne. Kennedy drove the car instead of his chauffeur so he could be alone with the young woman. As he was driving down the dark road, he made a wrong turn and drove the car off a bridge into the tide-swept water below.

Kennedy made it out and swam to shore. Kopechne didn’t. He never called the police that night, and instead slinked back to his hotel room. The young woman died of suffocation when the air-pocket she was in ran out of oxygen. If he had done what was right, she might be alive today.

Despite this history, Michelle and her husband embraced the senator, benefitting from his political support. She never felt any personal grief over Mary Jo Kopechne. She never shuddered when Kennedy put his arm around her as they celebrated political victories together.

The same is true for the alleged victims of Bill Clinton. Michelle apparently never felt shaken by what happened to Juanita Broaddrick, who testified that Clinton attacked her, biting her lip to keep her quiet, then pushing her onto a bed and raping her. Michelle has expressed no empathy for her, even though there were witnesses to Broaddrick’s injuries.

Michelle never claims to have trembled for Paula Jones, who said Clinton pulled her “over like he has done this a million times and grabs me and pulls me over to him to the windowsill and tries to kiss me.” He then dropped his pants.

Then he started — he pulled me over to him while he was leaning up against the wingback chair and he took his hands and was running them up my culottes. And they were long. They were down to my knees. They were long, dressy culottes. And he had his hand up, going up to my middle pelvic area, and he was kissing me on the neck, you know, and trying to kiss me on the lips and I wouldn’t let him. And then I backed back. I said, ‘Stop it. You know, I’m not this kind of girl.’

Where is Michelle’s outrage for Jones? Why does she support the Clintons, who have maligned this woman for years? Does she tremble at the thought of it? Has it shaken her to her core?

Where is Michelle’s disgust for her husband’s indecent exposure—a criminal act? Unlike Trump, he’s caught on tape actually committing the crime! Despite the giggles of the women on the plane, is this not a sexual violation? At the very least it’s a sexual perversion.

My president should be nothing like the man who stood before me all those years ago in saggy sweatpants, with an erection and a wicked grin, filling me with panic and shame. Seeing the video of Obama on that plane brought back that moment and those feelings for me, making me relive it all over again. Does Michelle tremble for me?

Pretending to Care about Victims Is Merely Manipulation

So what about Trump? Can a woman like me, who knows firsthand what it’s like to be sexually abused by a man, vote for him? I’m one of the women Michelle says she feels for. She says she understands my pain.

The truth is, she knows nothing of my feelings, my pain, or my shame. Her words are full of manipulation, using women who have suffered for her own purposes. In a way, she’s no different from the predatorial men who use women like objects to feed their own lusts. For Michelle—and Hillary—it’s lust for power, and they’ll use anyone to get it—even women like me.

“Yes, I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus! 21The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all the saints. Amen.… Revelation 22

God is Love!~Jesus saves!

Both the president and his wife gave a nauseating but convincing performance. Their outrage was something to behold.

Poor dears have ever heard such talk,don't know anyone that talks that way.

Yet not so very long ago they honored those that talk and sing trash on a daily basis. They make their living at it.

I believe the one goes by the name of "Common". His ankle bracelet went off in the White house. Not a problem he only pistol whipped a man and makes reference to cop killing and those awful guns he appears to love.

Beyounce and JayZ were not honored by invitation to the White House for their gospel music. They like the smutty language and smutty actions on stage,make money on their smut and poor Michelle so over come by Trump's remarks,has claimed Beyounce is a role model for young girls.

It is a wonder that both of them didn't choke on their own false piety

October 18, 2016

39 minutes ago, LifeHiscost said:

Is there no end to the sewage in our present culture, perhaps only recently revealed.

[q

Why am I telling you this? I’m sure you can guess. There’s a lot of talk about sexism and sexual assault recently because of tapes released about Donald Trump and several women who have never spoken before—some in more than 30 years—telling their stories of how he sexually assaulted them.

I don’t know whether their stories are true. If he’s guilty and found to be so in a court of law, then I hope he’s punished. I do wonder, however, why his accusers never mentioned these things when NBC hired Trump to be on national television. I wonder why they never mentioned it when he stepped into politics years ago. I wonder why they never mentioned it during the primaries. I wonder why they never mentioned it until October, just before the election.

Was it just because they felt some freedom to do so because of the “Access Hollywood” tape? Maybe, but the timing still seems odd to me. It all seems so—how shall I put it—choreographed.

Selective Emotion?

Last week, Michelle gave a speech in which she said she feels the pain of sexual assault victims “so personally.” Like the fine actress she is, her voice trembled. “I can’t stop thinking about this,” she said. “It has shaken me to my core in a way that I couldn’t have predicted.”

So while I’d love nothing more than to pretend like this isn’t happening, and to come out here and do my normal campaign speech, it would be dishonest and disingenuous to me to just move on to the next thing like this was all just a bad dream.

But Michelle Obama is being dishonest and disingenuous. She supports a woman who has viciously attacked women who say they were the victims of her husband’s sexual deviancy. They are no different than the women coming forward now, except their stories have stood the test of time, and have been corroborated. Yet they get no sympathy from Michelle and Hillary, only scorn and ridicule.

Worse, Michelle proves her disingenuousness by having supported a man who was not only sexually immoral but played a part in a woman’s death. In 1969, U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy left a party late one evening with 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne. Kennedy drove the car instead of his chauffeur so he could be alone with the young woman. As he was driving down the dark road, he made a wrong turn and drove the car off a bridge into the tide-swept water below.

Kennedy made it out and swam to shore. Kopechne didn’t. He never called the police that night, and instead slinked back to his hotel room. The young woman died of suffocation when the air-pocket she was in ran out of oxygen. If he had done what was right, she might be alive today.

Despite this history, Michelle and her husband embraced the senator, benefitting from his political support. She never felt any personal grief over Mary Jo Kopechne. She never shuddered when Kennedy put his arm around her as they celebrated political victories together.

The same is true for the alleged victims of Bill Clinton. Michelle apparently never felt shaken by what happened to Juanita Broaddrick, who testified that Clinton attacked her, biting her lip to keep her quiet, then pushing her onto a bed and raping her. Michelle has expressed no empathy for her, even though there were witnesses to Broaddrick’s injuries.

!

Selective emotion is right on the nose. It is a wonder she didn't choke on her phoney outrage . Obama looked like you could expect him to start breathing fire at any moment.

Yet these two invited those that make their living on talking smut in their music. I believe the one was named "Common" pretty nice guy,he raps about killing cops and his ankle bracelet went off during his invitation to the White House. Really nothing tho,he just pistol whipped a guy.

Jay Z and Beyonce were honored guests at the Whitehouse and not to sing gospel music. Smutty language and smutty actions on stage seem to be the way to get an invitation to the White House.

Michelle Obama is so horrified by smutty speech she thinks Beyonce is a role model for young girls. What a joke

http://theurbandaily.com/2013/12/13/beyonce-raunchy-quotes/ This is what is considered a role model for young girls. And poor Michelle trembles at a few minuets of smutty language

October 18, 2016

The case for Hillary? Let's see.... She, a lawyer for decades, destroyed documents requested in a subpoena, after being served with the subpoena. A felony. Tom ought to know this, but for some reason thinks when Hillary is guilty of tampering with evidence it is no big deal. Who said she did this? James Comey, the head of the FBI.

If anyone on this forum destroyed evidence after recieving a subpoena they would be sitting in jail and facing some pretty stiff prison time. Tom as an offfice of the court knows this, and ought to know that only guilty people destroy evidence. The innocent people are highly motivated to preserve evidence because the documents to be turned over are the evidence needed to clear their name. Guilty people destroy evidence in their attempt to get away with their crimes.

James Comey also said that Hillary lied under oath time after time. When asked if what Hillary had said was true in her testimony he said, no, time after time. So, she is also guilty of perjury according to the FBI. So, Tom thinks an evidence destroying lawyer who perjures herself on the witness stand will make a great president.

To that I have to ask, What planet you come from, Tom? Since when are lying perjurers who break the law to cover up their crimes trustworthy people? And since when do people that corrupt deal honestly and truthfully with the public once they are elected to office? How can you even believe a word she says when she lies under oath? Do you actually think she is more motivated to be truthful away from court where she lies after swearing to tell the truth? On planet earth liars are not trusted, so what planet do you come from?

October 18, 2016

They did their best to destroy Herman Cain. Accusations were taken as gospel,they couldn't produce the "fly" on the wall necessary for Clinton.Even after he was forced to man up and pay off Paula Jones we don't know if it is true. No "fly"on the wall has come forward concerning Trump and it is all gospel. Of course Hillary"s little oops with the e-mail is a conspiracy again,but there does seem to be a fly or two coming out Obama called her a liar and said she couldnt be trusted.She would promise anything and do nothing.Was he speaking from experience with her or was he lying and part of the conspiracy against her

October 18, 2016

@joeb Simply put... Depends on which end of the media you get your information and "facts" from. Your spin on all this does not match the facts of the actual process.

Share with us the sources of what you just posted.

Sign In

The case for endorsing Hillary to be the next president...

Recommended Posts

Tom Wetmore

Gregory Matthews

Tom Wetmore

bonnie

Tom Wetmore

bonnie

bonnie

Tom Wetmore

bonnie

bonnie

Jeannieb43

bonnie

bonnie

LifeHiscost

rudywoofs (Pam)

GayatfootofCross

LifeHiscost

LifeHiscost

bonnie

LifeHiscost

Why the Selective Emotion?

Pretending to Care about Victims Is Merely Manipulation

bonnie

Why the Selective Emotion?

Pretending to Care about Victims Is Merely Manipulation

bonnie

joeb

bonnie

Tom Wetmore

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity