Sore Losers: Its Comey....err..no its voter fraud...no wait its Russia!!

Fair enough.

For the record, I don't know you and take you at your word about all the above and respect your choices.

 

I respect those that are not hypocritical and stand by their beliefs, you can't call yourself a Christian and support Donald Trump - that is an inconsistent position.

I can't for the life of me find ANYONE that could support him other than Gordon Gecko, the man has literally insulted every single group there is.....

I understand those that want to have smaller government and lower taxes...HELL I AM ONE OF THOSE!!! But there are ways to get there that does not line the pockets of the super rich.....

Cut military spending - that is number 1.

DD

 

Ahhh, and all those who voted for Hillary, who has her own set of moral issues, they also lack moral fiber, character, and integrity then? So, the only only ones with any moral fiber, character, and integrity are the ones who didn't vote at all? Ya, that makes sense.

Did you, perchance, have the same comments around those who defended (or didn't castigate) Bill Clinton, who went far beyond the above? Or is your hypocritical compass perhaps just a shade biased?....thereby naturally removing you from the ability to get to dictate to others what does, and does not, constitute the appropriate test of character, and in fact, fall into the group of those who likely fail such a test.

FWIW, I did NOT defend him, I merely pointed out, quite appropriately (and as I did when Trump's response to the debate question first came up), that anyone doing so removes themselves from having any standing on which to question the results of the election later (and also had better not have fallen into the group of those who questioned the results of prior elections (Gore/Bush), many of whom still do so. There is no objective argument to that observation (which is why one has to jump to character impingement)...if you have one, by all means, please do present it.

I would also point that assuming that what they believe is what most people believe is a fairly consistent perception the left tends to have...and also that those who might hold a different opinion, well, they are just bad people. Which is so very open minded of them, isn't it? Ironic, no?

 

I guess this would be consistent if she did the same things that Trump did, or says the same things. I am not going to apologize for Hillary, I don't like her - think she would have been a below average President - this whole election cycle for me was about getting to the next one as a solid country and not screwing up what Obama has turned around after being handed a monumental Turd from W.

I have crossed both aisles to vote, and will continue to vote for the best person available ....didn't like either candidate this year - but come on....TRUMP was no real candidate - he is just not electable, and I honestly can't believe that 48% of the people swallowed their integrity to vote for this vile human being.

Integrity and honor are not a sometimes thing they are an every day thing.

DD

 

Curious why you attempt to defend Trump, while discussing Bill Clinton, who was not running, instead of Hillary, who was. Who hasn't suffered the same moral issues as Trump (and Bill Clinton, if you insist on bringing him into the discussion). In fact, of the two candidates that ran for President, only one is a Christian. And, surprise to the republican party, it is not Trump. Hillary is a devout Methodist (as am I). Trump, on the other hand, conveniently found religion, just in time (to run for President). As witnessed by one Paula White. A TV evangelist (why am I not surprised) with her own demons in her past.

 

How many dead people in Syria wouldn't be dead if Obama could have found a way to back up his "red line" statement? (or better yet, chosen a different path altogether).

How does this jibe with "honor and integrity"?

How exactly is releasing an admitted traitor who got other people killed in Afghanistan "honorable"?

 

I don't know - Syria is not the USA's problem - now is it? They are their own country, and it is a secular vs religious war - again, not something we should be a part of....

I guess we know that Trump nestled in Putins arm pits would have been ok with Russia backing Syria - right?

What traitor got released? I saw a commuted sentence, but who got released?

We can't protect everyone in the world, that shouldn't be our job, that is why we are in things like NATO and other alliances, sometimes war or committing troops is not the answer, glad Obama brought them home from that mess Bush created in Iraq.

DD

 

Yet Obama stuck his nose in, didn't "honor" his own words and people died. I thought honesty and integrity are an every day thing?

And there you have it. The Obama apologist's perfect statement. Just a "commuted sentence".

This is known as a distinction without a difference.

I guess it all depends on what the definition of "is" is right?

 

They sure are - what did you expect him to do exactly? He put sanctions on the Russians....did you expect him to commit troops? That would be monumentally stupid. And Obama is incredibly intelligent.

Commuted sentence is not released, Obama reviewed the material and decided she had served enough - we can disagree on that if you like.

But funny how it is ok with you that the Russians interfered in our election - right?

LOL - inconsistent.

You swallowed your integrity and voted for the Devil - reap what you sew.

DD

 

A "incredibly intelligent" president wouldn't have been stupid enough to say something he couldn't back up. He made a colossal blunder in Syria and a lot of people died that didn't have to. That's very true.

Oh did I? Tell me more about who I voted for and who I am.

 

Again, where am I defending Trump? These discussions would go a lot better if people focused on what I actually said, vs things I never said. At best, it is further exemplifying my point: people see what they want to see, depending on where they stand. Not exactly the position of honor and integrity, though, is it?

I brought up Bill Clinton as a direct comparison to the things that were brought up regarding Trump. It has nothing to do with this election, it has to do with stances regarding issues that people 'take', then completely change when the shoe is on the other foot. NO ONE who didn't castigate Bill for all the misogynistic things he did (he was an adulterer and philanderer for many many years, going back to his governorship). Doing so is BY DEFINITION sexual assault, given the presumed power such such a position conveys. What Trump was accused of doing isn't even close to being on the same scale. So, again, anyone castigating Trump, that didn't do so and far more against Bill...is a confirmed hyprocrit who has no standing to cast such stones.

As for Hillary...yes, indeed, she DID have similar moral issues. She lies all the time, abuses her power for personal gain, ignores national security when it is to her benefit, sells favors for personal gain, etc etc.

All those who continue to ignore these similarities are doing nothing but proving my point...that in politics, one tends to take issue only when the act occurs on the other side of the aisle. By all means, continue proving my point to your heart's content. The more you do, the more valid my point becomes.

that puts you in the very small minority, but good to hear. FWIW, I stopped voting Republican a while ago (McCain). Considered Obama then, but too divergent a set of philosophies. .

Clearly he was both a real candidate and electable, as he was in fact elected. As to the other, similar things would be said by the right for those who voted for Hillary. What makes them wrong? Nothing that doesn't apply equally to either argument. (I note NO ONE has brought up my mention of Trump's children as far better indicators of who he really is....so I will take that point as granted, rendering most of this discussion moot).

To try to bring things back to something more worth debating:

The answer to the first question is 'perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't'. Almost anything that goes on anywhere in the world impacts the U.S., most particularly anything that involves two differing factions. If we stay out of it, both sides blame us for not helping them. If we join in, one side or the other has a major issue with that. We tried desperately to stay out of the Balkans, and that led to riots in the Middle East against us for NOT taking part, creating the impression we were siding against the Muslims. So, it is nearly impossible to say that anything anywhere of any consequence is not our problem. Now, does that mean we can solve it? Definitely not. Does it mean that doing anything might make matters worse? Yes, it does. But Syria is definitely a problem for us, just as almost anything in the Middle East is. What to do about such problems is a very important question. Pretending they aren't problems is the ostrich approach....ignoring problems doesn't mean they don't exist, and can often make them worse.[/quote]

 

An incredibly intelligent president would rather blunder with words than actions. Regardless of what Obama did a lot of people were going to die. But if the U.S. got involved - a lot more people would have died, including Americans, and you would be attacking him for getting involved.

An incredibly stupid president would just make sweeping generalizations about the situation, think he can fix it easily, and talk about how great he is on Twitter.

 

Interesting position, given that one of the main Christian edicts is 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'.

FWIW, no one who called themselves a Christian could support Hillary, either, given her plethora of issues. Pretty much true for any politician, in fact. So, I guess Christians just couldn't vote, in your view? That is a doubly interesting position.

 

Fair points, but wouldn't you agree that an 'incredibly intelligent person' wouldn't make statements that he wouldn't/couldn't support to begin with, particularly when such statements are de facto positions of the United States (so please don't make comparisons with what someone with no official position at all said on Twitter, which would also avoid the question as well).

 

We can all agree that Trump is a douche of the worst kind a racist, misogynistic pig.

At least that is FACT.

DD

 

Interesting approach: since he's a thin-skinned d******d in general, that promotes equality.

1. When has he attacked a generic white American Christian man who had never said anything about him? Correct: never.
2. He has stated, bluntly, that women can be treated as objects. "You can do whatever you want." I don't think he's talked about grabbing random attractive men by the package. (But we'll find out if Putin ever release the NAMBLA bomb, ugh.)
3. He has said things -- insulting things -- about entire races and religions. Nevermind his business record wrt minorities. Not pretty. Those are actions, not just words.
4. He approaches equality in one way only. He insults the character, career, and/or lineage of anyone who dares to criticize him. (Note: not insult him, just criticize.) That's the only equality you can draw, but it's not really equal here either.
He often gives extra spice to women and minorities in his insults. Like the muslim mother of a fallen soldier -- maybe she's not allowed to speak, or some such insult to her faith. Alec Baldwin didn't get a special man insult; he was just "not funny" and "terrible". Megyn Kelly, however, had "blood coming out of her whatever" or some such.

Can you not see the difference? What's the harm is saying "yeah, I voted for this guy. He is crass, has said inappropriate things about women and minorities, but I think he'll ultimately be good for the country. He crosses lines, and that doesn't bother me." Why is that so hard for people? Own it. It's easier now than if he turns into a flaming disaster later this year.

 

1. When has he attacked a generic white American Christian man who had never said anything about him? Correct: never.

He's done it his entire career. Just recently, he attacked the Carrier Union rep. for criticizing his effort at keeping Carrier jobs in the US.

2. He has stated, bluntly, that women can be treated as objects. "You can do whatever you want." I don't think he's talked about grabbing random attractive men by the package. (But we'll find out if Putin ever release the NAMBLA bomb, ugh.)

It was locker-room talk. It's not the nicest sentiment but any real man would be able to discriminate between exaggerated boasting between men and serious policy making.

3. He has said things -- insulting things -- about entire races and religions. Nevermind his business record wrt minorities. Not pretty. Those are actions, not just words.

He's hired women, blacks, Latinos and other non-white, non-males?

4. He approaches equality in one way only. He insults the character, career, and/or lineage of anyone who dares to criticize him. (Note: not insult him, just criticize.) That's the only equality you can draw, but it's not really equal here either.

What? How can that not be equal if he goes after everyone the same? And what's wrong with that approach anyway? So he's tough with his critics - how's that a deal breaker? If you can't take banter, don't talk. And to be fair, most of his critics are idiots, that's why he's got a lot to say about them.

English language is like that. It's a cultural thing. We don't have slurs for white people but with blacks and women there's tons.

Because people with common sense know he's not to be taken literally and get his message because they've shared the other side of the American dream. I am not at all surprised you're small fry for a physicist.

 

By that definition every president is stupid. Because people make mistakes - hate to break it to you. And Republican politicians never seem to get called out for the stupid things they say by republicans.

 

I wouldn't be bragging about voting for Bush Jr 2.0.