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

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

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

They don't see the line. They are blind with rage.
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

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.

They don't see the line, they are blind with ignorance.
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 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

That is an even odder statement in every respect.

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

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...exual-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

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

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.