I would certainly condemn a Secretary of State who would not authorize help when an embassy was under attack. And through her negligent behavior cost the life of the Ambassador of Libya and other brave fighting men. And then to make matters worse lie about the reason for the invasion of the embassy. Calling the victims families liars for believing the actual truth.
I would also condemn a person who would accept cash to her “charitable fund” while she was, as Secretary of State, in a position to do favors for those who have donated. I would condemn that same person for taking donations from countries who treat women like second class citizens while at the same time she declares herself a feminist.
I would certainly condemn a person who would use her own private email instead of a government secured email thus potentially leaking top secrets to our enemies. And purposely deleting other possibly damning evidence about herself and her predator husband.
I would also at least question a person who is under two separate investigations from the FBI. The first is improper use of emails and the second is for corruption.
So, do you condemn Trump and his position on torture and the murder of non-combatant women and children?
And yep, I have no respect for Hillary. Which is why I had hoped the GoP would run someone electable and not absolutely and completely morally degenerate to the point that I can’t even vote for what could very well be her opposition.
What do you folks not get? How is this even remotely difficult to grasp? A Trump nomination brands the party as the Party of torture and women and children killing, period. The party of crude and vulgar misogyny. It will have to struggle with that image for elections to come after Trump is defeated by what should have been a very vulnerable Democrat nominee. Trump’s negative favorables become the entire Party’s if they put their stamp on him as “their guy.” The only major party to oppose the Democrats is flirting with one man who will drag them into fringe status for who the heck knows how long. Don’t like Hillary? You better hope Trump loses. You better make sure he does.
The (non) responses to the question “Do you condemn Trump for saying he’d commit war crimes, etc.?” has gotten positively comical.
Again, “hey, I really hate HRC” is not an answer.
But I think I get it. They don’t actually hate Trump or think he’s wrong for saying what he did - they just don’t want to admit it in mixed company because they fear being discredited or, well, mocked.
Here’s the thing, non-responders - it’d be better just rip the Band-Aid and admit you like him, would vote for him, are ok with his comments, etc. The discrediting is already happening and along with it, the added criticism of being disingenuous.
One other thought - the Clintons have always been imminently dislikable, but Republicans have often let their dislike turn into irrational and inchoate rage, leading to some very stupid decisions. That’s been a trend since the 1990s.
We’re seeing it in this very thread. The rage against HRC simply won’t allow a rational assessment of Trump. Anyone who takes a stand against HRC as an enemy is considered tolerable and presidential material, and there will be no acceptance of their disqualification due to reasons completely independent of what that candidate says or thinks about HRC. One criterion matters - everything else is ignored or dissembled.
How do we know? An otherwise Democratic candidate who promises war crimes runs on the GOP ticket and all he has to do is one thing - savage HRC - and rock-ribbed “conservative” Republicans fall over themselves to defend him. Shameful idiocy.
I love my country more than I hate Hillary Clinton. Would it be that we could count on Republicans to do the same, but we obviously cannot.
I’m picturing the absurdity of having to explain that you personally don’t condone torture and women killing (so hey, you can vote for me with a clear conscience). The absurdity of having to get that known and out of the way…
After that, two other spectacles are possible.
“What was your question? Oh…No, I can’t support the expansion of torture or the deliberate targeting of non-combatants…But, um, well, yeah I support our nominee.” Absolute shameful, bald-faced, morally bankrupt party loyalty. “How do I feel about women and Mexicans? Oh, No, I can’t…But I support our nominee!”
The second is involves practically running against your party’s nominee to combat carrying even a hint of Trump’s stench on your collar. “Look, I’m not Trump and I don’t even endorse him. I thought I was here to discuss me?!”
Of course there will be the Trump embracers. “How do I feel about Trump’s statement about women, torture, and the targeting of women and children? It’s going to be YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGEEEE!”
Lol, good luck to all three. Well, maybe sincerely for one of the three.
Its not surprising that you resort to the same old ad-hom you’ve been using since arrival. If someone else doesn’t write it you sure aren’t bright enough to come up with one on your own!
Where did you get that one , anyways? WOTR or something? It sounds a bit over your head and is somewhat creative.
Also, on the torture and what not- given the info you posted in the other thread and conclusions you jumped to- you really don’t want to start feeling too superior. You assumed I didn’t read them, but given your position, I know that you simply aren’t able to. McChrystal never said he wouldn’t use it, just that he didn’t have to up to this point.
You also left out the other half of the conclusion in the study on torture. When there is scarring, sentiment against the torturers turns negative, but not when more discrete, non scarring forms are used.
That being said, Its time to get back to not giving a fuck.
I’ll sum up what I’ve said before: I flirted with the idea of Trump, but easily, easily came to the conclusion that he is looney tunes and can not be trusted to lead the country. Because he is a narcissist first and foremost (no, I’m not a Doctor, but I don’t need to be, and my closest friend who is agrees with me so there!).
And anything that threatens Trump the Narcissist, or appeals to it, leads him to make irrational decisions and choices at the expense of everything else. The current shining example is this needless “feud” with Megyn Kelly of Fox News (which led to his skipping a debate and to his loss in Iowa imo).
And this Narcissist thing is what has led to the setbacks in his business career also. His ethics aside (as outlined by Jewbacca), Trump has made some exceedingly favorable deals for himself at the expense of everybody else and enriched himself in the process. EXCEPT when his narcissism got in the way, and he placed himself into unfavorable deals just for the name recognition factor alone -USFL, airline, vodka, steaks, university, etc.
Trump actually admitted to overpaying for the Plaza Hotel because it was such a “name” property. And the fact that he over-extended himself because he could not resist the whole name recognition thing, into deals that he even admitted were not great, tells the rational person all they need to know when deciding whether Trump can, in fact, be TrusTED with the highest office in the land.
Yes, Trump can be TrusTED as President, until his ego and his self-image is the Trumping factor, and surely that would never happen…
I condemn any President who would authorize the killing of terrorist family members. However, Trump is not the President. He is a candidate tossing political red meat to the masses. Do I think that is fitting? Of course not. But, that is how the game is played and it’s been going on for a very long time.
As for Hillary, anyone who does not vote against her becomes somewhat responsible for the left wing loons that she will appoint to the high court should she become President.
What if the she devil won by one vote Sloth? That would essentially mean that you put her in office.
That’s something that I would have a difficult time justifying.
Sure I wouldn’t want to bet that this would happen. But, anyone who votes for a third party candidate who cannot win, or stays home is in essence asking the rest of the country to decide for them.
Well, a convoluted post concerning the mysterious ability of the SecState to authorize the use of military force, the equally mysterious death of the “Ambassador of Libya”, and the mysterious lie HRC is alleged to have told concerning the Bengazi attack hardly warrants an urgent response.
I disagree with this. If these two extremely unpalatable people are the two official choices, I think it is important, and meaningful, that the winner wins with as low a percentage of the vote as possible i.e. with less than 50%, hopefully a lot less. In this case, there might be a minute chance that the winner will actually take that message to heart.
The Hillary haters all know she will bankrupt this country slowly, chronically. As a Hillary hater but also a NeverTrump guy, I also think that sometime during those 4 years, a President Trump will do something spectacularly crazy for ego reasons that will bankrupt this country unexpectedly, acutely.
I condemn any President who would authorize the killing of terrorist family members. However, Trump is not the President. He is a candidate tossing political red meat to the masses.[/quote]
Then that coward doesn’t have the spine to be President. If he doesn’t have the moral backbone to stand up to people who demand such a thing then to heck with him. And if that’s what it takes to win the GoP nomination, to heck with them. And if that’s what it takes to win the general, to heck withthis Nation. I oppose any man or woman wanting that office if they don’t even have the gonads to oppose such things. Like it takes even an ounce of bravery to be opposed to torture and the deliberate murder of non-combatants. What moral cowardice. Liberty before security? How about some damn decency before it also? Is he that much of a chickenshit that he can’t standup to the pitchfork and torches mentality?
If not a coward than a con-man. A con-man so devoid of a moral governor he’d feed off the nasty desires of others to get his prize. He’ll tell them what they want, make them excited about it, stoke it, feed it, and earn their undying confidence. “Now this! This is the man who’ll give us our twisted and broken corpses! Hot damn!” To heck with him in that case, too.
But if neither of those…Well, his would-be crimes won’t be on my hands. He’s told you what he’d like to see. If he’s being honest, it’ll all be on your head.
[quote]As for Hillary, anyone who does not vote against her becomes somewhat responsible for the left wing loons that she will appoint to the high court should she become President.
What if the she devil won by one vote Sloth? [/quote]
Nope it’ll be on your head. For muddying up the effort to run this man out of the Party with his tail tucked between his legs. I won’t vote for your “he devil” in order to oppose the “she devil.” And you can take that to the bank. If he wins this nomination–and if you really want to beat Hillary and have a healthy future for the GoP you better make sure that isn’t the case–I will sleep soundly knowing I didn’t case a vote for either. I just hope you remember, as you go to cast that vote for Trump, you’re voting for a man (and you are) who at the very least used a promise of pain and murder to whip up the worst in us. And at the worst meant exactly what he said.
Your rant, and for the record, the rants by others regarding Trump and his tendency to be brash and talk in incomplete sentences (hey Reagan did that too), pales in the face of what Hillary Clinton has ACTUALLY DONE!
It is absolutely comical how otherwise intelligent grown men can attack Trump daily without a care in the world to what the evil witch has been up to for the past 25 years. There should be no question that on ethical grounds alone no one could possibly vote for, or avoid voting against Hillary Clinton.
Are you joking? What Trump proposed is nothing short of murder (nevermind the torture for now). He’s already a con-man, at the least. Without even the scrap of a moral code that would shame him away from a con job that involves fanning the flames of murderous ‘vengeance.’ And worse yet, he could very well be “telling it like it is.” That is, being a no bullshit straight-shooter. So con-man, or brutal straight-shooter. Don’t lecture us on ethics. Cast your vote for him and carry the shame. I won’t be shamed into helping you with the burden.