So what does it take for people to say, O.K., this is enough? Does
he have to shoot or rape someone on stage to get disqualified? I mean, most of the people who read this forum are MEN with families
(including yours truly). Is this the kind of MAN you want your son to
grow up to be? Is this the kind of man you want your DAUGHTER to be
around????? Are you kidding me? O.K. guys, ENOUGH!

It's amazing isn't it?

thats ben my issue all along.. it's all his comments combined there totality ..

Supporters do not see them (statements )in this light, they see them as individually statements that can be apologized away or he's not politically correct .... as a justification.. or he's just a regular Guy

But some have no issues seeing perceived misconduct of Clinton over 30 years as evidence (truth) of being corrupt . even if the facts show something different..

Its the same Logic they use against global warming Just with Trump

look at this guy voted in with a populace message pres of the philippines
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36251094

Is this how Trump would be on the world Stage ? I hope not but I can't risk it .. Can you???

So how do I vote to keep Hillary out of the White House????

Can a draft Mitt campaign get legs in 31 days? Does 25% of the voting public even know that Johnson exists? Neither candidate is worthy, but I will do almost anything to keep Clinton out. I agree with the above sentiments but will not cast a vote for her.

Now back to fishing forums.....

I'd vote for Mitt in a heart beat
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Or John Kerry
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So how do I vote to keep Hillary out of the White House????

Can a draft Mitt campaign get legs in 31 days? Does 25% of the voting public even know that Johnson exists? Neither candidate is worthy, but I will do almost anything to keep Clinton out. I agree with the above sentiments but will not cast a vote for her.

Now back to fishing forums.....
I think Mitt could step in and likely win. I thought Johnson was interesting but the rookie mistakes he keeps making are telling.

Or you could just vote for Clinton and realize the world isn't going to end.

you'd think ...Bill Clinton was never president or something....all upset because Trump talks about stuff Bubba actually did? :bl:

The number of prominent Republicans pulling support for Trump is pretty telling.

there is an unflattering publication cover on Drudge regarding Trump but I'm going to disregard it as conspiratorial tabloid journalism, OK Spence?

The number of prominent Republicans pulling support for Trump is pretty telling.

I drove all over New England yesterday...saw a ton of Trump signs and even people at intersections...I honestly didn't see a single Hillary sign....prominent republicans are only worth 1 vote each....undocumented democrats...whole different story :rotf2:

It least Trump apologizes for things he says and does. The Clinton's never do. Neither Bill or Hillary.

It least Trump apologizes for things he says and does. The Clinton's never do. Neither Bill or Hillary.

Seriously?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:bl: When has Bill or Hillary ever admitted to anything and apologized for it?
I don't like either candidate, but I'll do whatever is within my power to keep Hillary out of the White House. Even if it means voting for Trump.

Seriously?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
It's like bizarre...

This situation has gotten so bad Trump's own running mate won't stand up for him. Trump is going no where - it's going to rip the GOP apart.

This situation has gotten so bad Trump's own running mate won't stand up for him. Trump is going no where - it's going to rip the GOP apart.

then you should be celebrating!!!! why so grumpy?

then you should be celebrating!!!! why so grumpy?
Not grumpy, I'd just like to see at least two strong parties, better for the USA.

ummmm...we have two "strong" "parties" and the USA is hopelessly mired in debt, 60+ % dislike the direction of the country, our foreign policy is a disaster, politicians spend decades in Washington spending/wasting other people's money with no regard or accountability and we have two of the most deeply flawed Presidential candidates in our history that nobody really likes courtesy of those two "strong" parties

not sure how good it's been to have two "strong" parties

It's like bizarre...
And your love for Hillary isn't bizarre?

thats ben my issue all along.. it's all his comments combined there totality ..

They're just odd . . .

Is this how Trump would be on the world Stage ? I hope not but I can't risk it .. Can you???

That's an odd statement to make?

So what does it take for people to say, O.K., this is enough? Does
he have to shoot or rape someone on stage to get disqualified? I mean, most of the people who read this forum are MEN with families
(including yours truly). Is this the kind of MAN you want your son to
grow up to be? Is this the kind of man you want your DAUGHTER to be
around????? Are you kidding me? O.K. guys, ENOUGH!

Unfortunatly, the kind of man you want your son to be has not been winning many Presidential elections. That's the reason that once upon a time the Press used to not scrutinize candidates sexual conduct. If it had, a lot of Presidents would not have been elected.

We've gone way past that. So get used to it and stick to issues not personalities.

So what does it take for people to say, O.K., this is enough? Does
he have to shoot or rape someone on stage to get disqualified? I mean, most of the people who read this forum are MEN with families
(including yours truly). Is this the kind of MAN you want your son to
grow up to be? Is this the kind of man you want your DAUGHTER to be
around????? Are you kidding me? O.K. guys, ENOUGH!



So you saying if Trump raped a woman that would be what does him in, but Bill Clinton raping women Hillary covering it up, intimidating the victims and threatening retaliation is ok ???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what is worse? saying something horrible or actually doing something horrible? both are horrible but stating and acting are 2 entirely different things.

I can't vote for a candidate that does not support the Constitution

Here's what the Republicans are saying.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/republicans-list-trump-disavowal-groping-tape%20

And no, I didn't vote for Bill Clinton in '96; I thought he was a sleazy
piece of s---. I'm not excusing his behavior at all.

Not grumpy, I'd just like to see at least two strong parties, better for the USA.

Do you mean two strong parties that fundamentally differ from each other, or two strong parties that differ mainly in the personalities of the candidates they choose for office? If the latter, what difference does it make if only one, or neither is "strong"?

What are the critical differences, if any, that you want to exist?

And if you did actually want the parties to fundamentally differ, what would your preferred differences be? And which difference would you prefer?

The impression I get from your posts is that you don't want major differences between the parties. But you'd rather that in given circumstances one would be more "moderate" than the other. If that's the case, how would the long run big picture be any different if one party was weak and the other strong? Or if one party just disappeared?

Here's what the Republicans are saying.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/republicans-list-trump-disavowal-groping-tape%20

And no, I didn't vote for Bill Clinton in '96; I thought he was a sleazy
piece of s---. I'm not excusing his behavior at all.

And what are the Democrats saying about why they voted for Bill Clinton?

I dunno. It probably wasn't anything good. But, hey someone came
to the Donald's defense; none other than the midnight cowboy himself,
Jon Voight!

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2016/10/09/jon-voight-defends-trump-remarks-blasts-robert-de-niro-for-ugly-rant.html

But, for all practical purposes, the election's over. The RNC has (finally!)
pulled the plug on Trump. It's history.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/10/08/republican-party-cuts-trumps-cash-leaves-nominee-wither-die.html

The impression I get from your posts is that you don't want major differences between the parties.



he would like Lincoln Chaffee to be the republican nominee...something about an impressive resume?

Originally posted by hq: And no, I didn't vote for Bill Clinton in '96; I thought he was a sleazy piece of s---. I'm not excusing his behavior at all.

Originally posted by detbuch: And what are the Democrats saying about why they voted for Bill Clinton?

Let me answer that for you. The Democrats didn't care that he was a sleazy piece of s... They supported him en masse. They excused him, defended him, protected him from dropping out of the race. Because they cared more for their agenda than they did about personal foibles. That is how they succeed as a party. Don't give up an inch. Plow forward, sleaze or not.

They understand, however, that if they slime or expose the slime of a Republican, especially one running for President, the rest of the party will not come together to defend or excuse their candidate. They know that they can bring that candidate down if enough dirt is put on him.

Which is what you see happening now. Republicans scurrying like rats off a sinking ship. Both politicians and voters. The Democrats are banking on Republican voters to care more about personal dirt than their agenda. And to a great extent, they are probably right to bank on that.

And what is this shocking new personal dirt? Actually, as Spence would say, it's old news. Trump has not hidden that he was sexually loose in the past. And this instance was "on tape." And he used foul language. But he didn't force the issue. The lady didn't reciprocate. That was the end of it. He didn't, as Clinton was accused of doing, force himself on her. But the incident is on tape. And what is supposed to make it really, really bad is the vulgar language Trump used to tell the tale. Maybe if he prettied it up and used nice words, maybe if he would have been romantic instead of crude, it wouldn't have been a big issue. Yeah, right.

That is not to excuse Trumps behavior. His past behavior is no secret. He doesn't hide it. As vulgar as it was, it would not have been important enough to sink him if he was the Democrat candidate. The party would support, defend, and excuse him if he were a Democrat. And if the Democrat voters were a bit queasy about it, they would care more about the good stuff he would do for them than about his imperfections.

Maybe enough Republican voter will feel the same way. Or maybe Trump will drop out and Pence will take over and the Dems won't have enough time to dig up some really good dirt about him.

Sigh. Loathe as I am to admit it, but most of what you said about the Democrats and Clinton is true. They're as willing to sell their souls for power as the Republicans have been (see: October surprise, 1980. No, Iran-Contra clearly showed the fix was in). And to go one step further, I have to state that this would not be the worst election in modern American history. That honor would go the '64 election, which pitted:

Barry Goldwater - field commanders to have their choice of tactical nuclear weapons? The south to self-enforce civil rights legislation (after 100 years of segregation????), Ending social security??

Lyndon Johnson - assassin and murderer (so why did you invite JFK to Dallas the week before you were to be indicted for a fraudulent land deal, Lyndon? Why was the parade route fixed? Why did the motorcade slow down?) Also Google Mac Wallace for other LBJ murders.

THAT was the worst election in modern American history. This one
comes in a close second.

And in the end, like Lyndon Johnson, who was tormented by Vietnam, the Clintons will regret winning this one too. Because ol' KGB friend
Putin (who has clearly been paying off the Donald, BTW) is waiting to punish them for sending NATO into Eastern Europe. It will be a truly
memorable (and horrible) 4 years for all of us. I'm not looking forward to it.

Sigh. Loathe as I am to admit it, but most of what you said about the Democrats and Clinton is true. They're as willing to sell their souls for power as the Republicans have been (see: October surprise, 1980. No, Iran-Contra clearly showed the fix was in). And to go one step further, I have to state that this would not be the worst election in modern American history. That honor would go the '64 election, which pitted:

Barry Goldwater - field commanders to have their choice of tactical nuclear weapons? The south to self-enforce civil rights legislation (after 100 years of segregation????), Ending social security??

Lyndon Johnson - assassin and murderer (so why did you invite JFK to Dallas the week before you were to be indicted for a fraudulent land deal, Lyndon? Why was the parade route fixed? Why did the motorcade slow down?) Also Google Mac Wallace for other LBJ murders.

THAT was the worst election in modern American history. This one
comes in a close second.

And in the end, like Lyndon Johnson, who was tormented by Vietnam, the Clintons will regret winning this one too. Because ol' KGB friend
Putin (who has clearly been paying off the Donald, BTW) is waiting to punish them for sending NATO into Eastern Europe. It will be a truly
memorable (and horrible) 4 years for all of us. I'm not looking forward to it.

As Spence would say--Wow, just wow.

Have we had any good elections?

So I assume all you hurt feeling , hypocrites will be petitioning NBC to have Billy Bush fired? Any guy claiming to never have talked #^&#^&#^&#^& is an outright liar. The pussification is clearly evident here. Trump sure as hell isn't my first choice but at this point he's my only choice.

So it looks like you have no idea what he said
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actions speak louder than words.




But in social media's short attention span, mob rules
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I've heard the tape and read the reports.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And when you’re a star they let you do it,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”

“Whatever you want,” says another voice, apparently Bush’s.

“Grab them by the p---y,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thst is sexual assault not bar talk amongst friends. I guess anyone who doesn't agree with that is a pu&&&.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And who was the victim in this "assault" where no actual assault took place?
Another Bush quote from the recording "“Your girl’s hot as s---, in the purple,” I'm outraged he'd use such offensive language in a conversation with another man.

If having inappropriate conversations is now a crime we're all screwed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And who was the victim in this "assault" where no actual assault took place?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Only The Donald knows whose pu*** he grabbed.

Where did anyone say an inappropriate conversation is a crime?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thst is sexual assault not bar talk amongst friends. I guess anyone who doesn't agree with that is a pu&&&.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
They don't see the line. They are blind with rage.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actions speak louder than words.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree but Trump has a long history of woman claiming inappropriate behavior on his part.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They don't see the line. They are blind with rage.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
So it's okay that Bill Clinton physically crossed the line vs. Trump just talking. And Hillary sweeping it under the rug is all okay with the left?

OK, This is getting beyond ridiculous. The bar was set by Bill Clinton for what a politician, including a President, is allowed to do with women. The Democrat Congress did not veto it. And Hillary supported it, even at the social and mental expense of the women with whom Bill set that bar.

Trump has not crossed the line established by Bill. He has not even reached it. What has been established is still far beyond what Trump has done.

So, if your so offended by what Trump said that you think he should not be President, you should be even more adamant that a primary enabler of that bar, Hillary, also should not be President. Otherwise, if you support her, your indignation at Trumps comments is phony, or at the very least, as wdmso says, it's odd.

So it's okay that Bill Clinton physically crossed the line vs. Trump just talking. And Hillary sweeping it under the rug is all okay with the left?

They don't see the line, they are blind with ignorance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree but Trump has a long history of woman claiming inappropriate behavior on his part.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
We already know and knew that as well as Clinton
They are both seriously flawed
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We already know and knew that as well as Clinton
They are both seriously flawed
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you're saying not to vote for Bill Clinton?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you're saying not to vote for Bill Clinton?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
So you're saying Hillary didn't just sweep the issues under the rug and or threaten any of the women Bill took advantage of?

She is a flawed candidate but in its totality what she did is far far less offensive then Trump's daily comments and actions. Her temperament, preparedness intelligence and honesty is far beyond anything we've ever seen from Trump. He is an abrasive person. Edit - I'm still shocked that he stated if he was president she would be in jail.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She is a flawed candidate but in its totality what she did is far far less offensive then Trump's daily comments and actions.

Attacking the women's character that Bill assaulted, calling them very, very offensive names, enabling Bill to get away with it and do more, as well as calling a large segment of the U.S. population (which includes a lot of women) deplorables may seem far far less offensive to you then Trump's comments, but others would see your perceptions, as wdmso might say, as being very odd.

Her temperament, preparedness intelligence and honesty is far beyond anything we've ever seen from Trump. He is an abrasive person.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is an even odder statement in every respect.

I find Hillary's condescending demeanor very abrasive.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is an even odder statement in every respect.


Don’t just listen to Donald Trump boast about sexual assault. Listen to the women who’ve accused him

http://qz.com/804486/the-women-whove-accused-donald-trump-of-sexual-assault/

trailer trash.”bimbo 1992 that if she had the chance to cross-examine Flowers, 'I mean, I would crucify her,' wow thats so horrible ...

Not believing the women accusing your husband ..shocking Who's wife here wouldn't question the validly of such a claim?

Get back to us when Hillary talks about grabbing a man Junk Because of her postilion or gets accused of sexually assaulting someone wait you cant it hasn't happened

Just another example of false equivalency to shield your man and runny with Trumps Talking points

Don’t just listen to Donald Trump boast about sexual assault. Listen to the women who’ve accused him

http://qz.com/804486/the-women-whove-accused-donald-trump-of-sexual-assault/

trailer trash.”bimbo 1992 that if she had the chance to cross-examine Flowers, 'I mean, I would crucify her,' wow thats so horrible ...

Not believing the women accusing your husband ..shocking Who's wife here wouldn't question the validly of such a claim?

There were several accusations, a semen stained dress, a lawsuit settled in favor of the woman, a disbarment for lying, an impeachment . . . gee whose wife here wouldn't question the validity of all that?

Wait . . . didn't you say in your first sentence here: "Listen to the women who’ve accused him"?


Get back to us when Hillary talks about grabbing a man Junk Because of her postilion or gets accused of sexually assaulting someone wait you cant it hasn't happened

Never said she did any of that. Probably not worth repeating what I did say since you don't think she enabled Bill's sexual behavior. Probably not worth debating with you at all since you disregard or don't comprehend most of my replies to you.

Just another example of false equivalency to shield your man and runny with Trumps Talking points

Of course it is. Keep shielding your woman and runniness. And have a good life.

Sigh. Loathe as I am to admit it, but most of what you said about the Democrats and Clinton is true. They're as willing to sell their souls for power as the Republicans

Just to be clear, I wasn't criticizing Democrats or calling them corrupt when saying that they stuck together and protected Bill Clinton's sexual behavior and comparing them to The Republican's who are not doing so with Trump or not doing so with other Republican politicians in the past. I was pointing out how, in my opinion, the Dems were and are more concerned and protective of their agenda than in their previous candidate's sexual proclivities or in their present candidates enabling of those proclivities as well as her checkered past and recent failures, while they are trying to destroy Trump for the same issues. In a certain way, that is honorable--the mission, the core belief, is more important than personal dishonor. If not honorable at all, it is certainly pragmatic. And if one has distaste for the ends justifying the means, one must consider that self-annihilation can mean an end to the ends.

Republicans, on the other hand, are divided--many apparently willing to let the Dems have the Presidency thus giving them the power to nominate several SCOTUS Judges which would not only severely damage the possibility of enacting a Republican agenda, whatever that is nowadays, but greatly assure the further advancement of the Democrat agenda. Is such a pyrrhic honor more selfish than honorable, considering what would be lost to following generations?

The division in the Republican party is probably that it does not have a singular fundamental agenda. The Democrats have coalesced as undivided Progressives with the agenda of fully instituting a Progressive form of government. And that goal overrides any concern over personal foibles. Especially so since the goal of Progressivism is a society well-regulated by government. Personality, as all else, is relative and useful only if it can further the goal. Otherwise, it and they are inconsequential. And honor is just another one of those words whose meaning changes or disappears in the relativity of shifting contexts.

Republicans have the internal clash between semi-to mostly-Progressives (what Spence fairly refers to as Neo-Cons) with mostly to fully Classical Liberal Constitutionalists. The Classical Liberals ( true"conservatives") wish to preserve the Constitutional order. The "Neo-Cons" think they do but have a hard time of sticking with it, quite often wandering into Progressive legislation, and seem to be more concerned about getting re-elected than fighting for fundamental principles.

The "conservatives" are an endangered species which no-one other than themselves wishes to preserve. As such, they too cannot fuss over a candidate's imperfections. A fight to the death is just that. So there is no point in surrendering or quibbling about someone's sexual misadventures. They have that in common with Progressives.

The Neo-Cons are betwixt and between, lack real identity, blow with the wind, and are willing to abandon their more principled brethren for self-preservation. Anything that could threaten their re-election, such as supporting a media flawed candidate requires distance from it. Never mind that many of our most revered forefathers had similar or worse flaws, yet they served and promoted the cause.

For what it's worth, this is a more fleshed out explanation of what I was inferring in the post to which you replied. Personally, I would rather have had Ted Cruz be the candidate representing the "conservative" alternative to the Progressive candidate. We could have seen a distinct difference between him and Hillary in almost every respect. And the race would have given a much needed platform for the Classical Liberal view of government.

Now, we are stuck in a battle of . . . whatever. But the prospect of seriously furthering the destruction of our founding principles does not leave much choice to the true "conservatives." Nor, I suppose, to the true Progressives.