Clinton child sex ring

[Alpo]

 

[jamil]

Well, first, the operative decision for most here was not in the general, but in the primary. That's when there was a clearer choice on the matter.

Second, that one voted for Trump at the time does not require support for him now. People can choose that. That choice reflects their personal principles.

Likewise, the manner in which any negative Trump observations are met with parries that devolve into ad hom or "but Clinton" reveals even more about those Trump supporters.

ETA:
To bring it back to the topic, Epstein didn't have to invite underage girls to his home(s). He made that choice. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.

Once they were there, he had another choice in how to interact with them. That latter choice is the reprehensible one.

I'm probably going to vote for the pornstar ****er. There's not a Democrat I can vote for. They're all bat **** crazy. There's just not a better choice in terms of direction for the country. I don't want to vote for a pornstar ****er. But I also don't want the country to move one centimeter more to the left. I don't want any bat **** crazy leftists sitting in that chair. I had my doubts about Trump's capacity when I reluctantly voted for him the first time. But he's not really ****ed too many things up. And he's actually gotten a few things done that I'd like done. And maybe he had to suck some NK dong to do it, but we're further from armed conflict than we were at the end of O's last term. And the economy is doing quite well. The country is in objectively better shape now than it was 4 years ago. And I'm pretty sure that won't be the case 4 years from now if any of the Dems are elected. They're so ideologically possessed, they just can't help themselves.

I'm not using my vote to approve of the morality of person. At this point it is to steer the country away from the left cliff. So you can try to impugn my sense of morality for that. I really don't give a flying **** about your sense of virtue. I give a **** about this country and its sharply leftward direction. I'm not as confident as Kut's dad that Republicans would be able to offset a progressive woke ideologue POTUS and her bat**** crazy squad.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

One point about the conduct of the people we elect. We were given the choice between two morally reprehensible people. If you voted for either candidate, you voted for an immoral person. I'm not going to disparage the morality of democrats for voting Hillary, when the guy I voted for ****ed a porn star while his wife was pregnant with his son, and then paid the ***** off to STFU about it. Sometimes you're just stuck with a turd and a douche and you have to pick one or the other, and your reasoning follows your ideological preferences. But. I will disparage those democrats who refuse to acknowledge that Hillary was/is a horribly immoral person. Probably fair to apply that to Trump voters as well. Yes. You voted for an immoral person. If you can't admit his faults because it feels too much like treason to your side, well, I ain't got much else to say for you.

It's fine to say, yes. Trump is an immoral douche. But I like most of his policies. So who else is there to vote for?

So maybe we could stop throwing around the moral implications just because this person voted for that candidate. It's more than just the morality of the candidates available. It's the outcome that they will produce. It's not all roses with Trump. But it's not all thorns either. He's doing better than I thought. But far from ideal.

As I told my (then 94 year old, now 97 year old) mom, I voted for Trump because he's an ******* and a businessman. I felt (and still feel) that we needed someone that had both those qualities. He has delivered to my satisfaction.

 

[Dead Duck]

 

[jamil]

As I told my (then 94 year old, now 97 year old) mom, I voted for Trump because he's an ******* and a businessman. I felt (and still feel) that we needed someone that had both those qualities. He has delivered to my satisfaction.

I'd rather the POTUS were an honest and upstanding person of good repute. But I can't have that. I'm not voting for the morals of the person. I'm voting for the most likely outcome. I don't think you have to be an ******* to be effective.

 

[2A_Tom]

I'd rather the POTUS were an honest and upstanding person of good repute. But I can't have that. I'm not voting for the morals of the person. I'm voting for the most likely outcome. I don't think you have to be an ******* to be effective.

GWB was a nice guy, tried to work across the aisle, got trampled by both the Democrats and the media.

Trump has been treated badly even before he started acting like a whatever. No other candidate could have beaten Hillary and if they did they would not have been able to handle the opposition.

 

[KG1]

If one supports Trump I guess it boils down to choosing policy over principle because one cannot honestly deny Trump’s obvious character flaws.

That’s my take anyway.

 

[spec4]

^^ This!! I've been saying that for decades and been accused of being a whacked out right winger. Well, it's pretty clear now that the chickens are coming home to roost. Their masks are off.

 

[Ziggidy]

I lke Trump! Not that I like his character 100%, but I like him because he is getting the job done; he's tough.

As I read this I start to think about what has been said, on both sides - or all sides. We live in an imperfect world that demands some perfection in certain areas; or so it seems. I think of all the self righteous who say they would never vote for a man like Trump, but yet are guilty themselves of what they complain about. Examples are numerous, even here on Ingo. Hot girls fishing! Girls supporting open carry! What about the services people use? Cab drivers, restaurant employees and such. What about companies you support through your dollars? Disney, Xfinity and let's not leave out Google and such! What about those teachers who indoctrinate your children?

Yes, we all want the best, most righteous person for the job. I have yet to find anyone who fits my idea of perfect. Oh but, the POUS should have better morals and such; maybe so, but by whose measure? Do I want the "other" side determining my life's direction? Of course not. So I want ideologies that will help destroy this great country? Of course not.

So how do we address the situation? We look at an individual who shares a vision, an ideology that matches mine in the closest possible manner. Sort of like choosing a doctor or a church pastor, none are perfect but we pick the best based on past performance records and their vision for "our" future. Trump is certainly no saint, and neither am I - or any of you; however he has/had the best record for someone to move this country forward in the direction "I" liked. I think of my work reviews when I worked. I did a good job, better than average in most areas - IN SPITE OF MY PERSONAL DIFFICULTIES. Should my boss have given me a lower score/grade based on my life in general? Thank goodness they did not...I have had some pretty "bad" times. I think about my part time "retirement" job I have now. I think about the "worldly" people (mostly young) and how they are messing their life up. I am quiet and blend into the crowd in my own way NOT thinking about their worldly ways, but their work performance. If I had to judge them based on looks or what I know, they would all have failed, and I would have been wrong.

The hypocrisy of judging beyond the measure of the task is wrong in most (if not all) cases. Trump is doing a great job. Could he do better? We all can. Could he do better if for the last 3 years he was supported rather than persecuted? You know it.

It's time to look at the reality. He's worldly...but he is working for us and doing a very good job. About time to see what could happen if we really showed support rather than pointing out the sliver in his eye.

I know it's lengthy; and I am not a good typist.....just sayin'

 

[jamil]

Being guided by the 'wisdom' of the crowd is how we got in this mess in the first place. What percentage is 'most'? Is 50.1% enough? With what confidence level? What polls should we trust to tell us what to think?

What you're saying is you think Trump is [insert complaints and moralisms here] and because of that, everyone else should too. Not everyone has quite that high an opinion of you

No, I think it's accurate to say that *most* people think Trump's behavior is reprehensible. Not all of it. Only TDS sufferers think Trump is incapable of any good. But, most people do think husbands shouldn't **** porn stars while their wives are pregnant with their kids. There are plenty of other examples of Trump's reprehensible behavior. And most people do recognize those things are reprehensible. It's not that they're saying you *should* too as it is them saying that if you don't hold the same common morals, you either don't have the same moral standards as those who do, or, you're too reluctant to acknowledge that those things are reprehensible because of your bias towards Trump.

Personally, I think you do have those moral standards. I think you would find pornstar ****ing a pretty reprehensible thing for a husband and father to do. But, if you find yourself searching for reasons not to care that your president is a pornstar ****er, when you do care when other husbands do it, then maybe you're having a hard time integrating the reality of Trump's moral failures with your own moral standards.

As I've been saying. Nothing wrong with admitting Trump's faults. Doesn't mean you are immoral for supporting him. It's not immoral to vote for someone immoral, especially when there isn't a morally upstanding person to vote for. And all those highbrow twitterotti who claim they are voting for the moral choice, let's see what happens when they have a choice between a woke criminal and an objectively moral, upstanding individual. They'll deny their candidate's immorality and invent faux morality issues with the other. It's about ideology, not morality. So I'm quite willing to use the latter as my standard more than the former. I'll use morality as the tie breaker.

 

[jamil]

If one supports Trump I guess it boils down to choosing policy over principle because one cannot honestly deny Trump’s obvious character flaws.

That’s my take anyway.

My only nit is that it's not either/or. Policy can be principled. One principled policy Trump seems to support in his actions as POTUS is getting rid of senseless regulations. Granted, he's not completely consistent in that, but damn better at it than the past many presidents.

 

[2A_Tom]

Show me a man with out character flaws and I'll show you my Lord and Saviour.

I read a portion of Luke this morning that included this passage.

[h=3]Luke
Chapter 13[/h]
​

+ Text Size —

​

1There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
2And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?
3I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
4Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
5I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

We are all sinners and contrary to what some believe there is no difference, in God's eyes, between a little white lie and premeditated murder.

 

[KG1]

My only nit is that it's not either/or. Policy can be principled. One principled policy Trump seems to support in his actions as POTUS is getting rid of senseless regulations. Granted, he's not completely consistent in that, but damn better at it than the past many presidents.

I can see that but my reference to setting aside principles were correlated to accepting Trump’s character flaws in support of policy.

 

[KG1]

Show me a man with out character flaws and I'll show you my Lord and Saviour.

I read a portion of Luke this morning that included this passage.
[/FONT][/COLOR][/B][/COLOR]



[/FONT][/COLOR]

We are all sinners and contrary to what some believe there is no difference, in God's eyes, between a little white lie and premeditated murder.

There are a good number on the religious right that are willing to overlook character flaws in favor of Trump’s current policies championing the unborn and religious freedoms.

 

[IndyDave1776]

There are a good number on the religious right that are willing to overlook character flaws in favor of Trump’s current policies championing the unborn and religious freedoms.

Especially when the alternative was someone of far greater flaws offering absolutely nothing.

 

[BugI02]

No, I think it's accurate to say that *most* people think Trump's behavior is reprehensible. Not all of it. Only TDS sufferers think Trump is incapable of any good. But, most people do think husbands shouldn't **** porn stars while their wives are pregnant with their kids. There are plenty of other examples of Trump's reprehensible behavior. And most people do recognize those things are reprehensible. It's not that they're saying you *should* too as it is them saying that if you don't hold the same common morals, you either don't have the same moral standards as those who do, or, you're too reluctant to acknowledge that those things are reprehensible because of your bias towards Trump.

Personally, I think you do have those moral standards. I think you would find pornstar ****ing a pretty reprehensible thing for a husband and father to do. But, if you find yourself searching for reasons not to care that your president is a pornstar ****er, when you do care when other husbands do it, then maybe you're having a hard time integrating the reality of Trump's moral failures with your own moral standards.

As I've been saying. Nothing wrong with admitting Trump's faults. Doesn't mean you are immoral for supporting him. It's not immoral to vote for someone immoral, especially when there isn't a morally upstanding person to vote for. And all those highbrow twitterotti who claim they are voting for the moral choice, let's see what happens when they have a choice between a woke criminal and an objectively moral, upstanding individual. They'll deny their candidate's immorality and invent faux morality issues with the other. It's about ideology, not morality. So I'm quite willing to use the latter as my standard more than the former. I'll use morality as the tie breaker.

We've covered this territory before. I can find Trump's behavior 'reprehensible' without finding it disqualifying or feeling the need to add my voice to the chorus

I wasn't looking for a saint, I was looking for someone to turn this thing around - and when I got on the train, he was taking it to the people I knew would be a disaster (Jeb, Christie, Jindal, Kasich, Rubio, Santorum) and showing himself to be a fighter

If you rewind this thread a bit, all I did was take offense to the really long stretch of trying to tie Trump to Epstein on the subject of Epstein's proclivities based on the thinnest, most tenuous innuendo. I just get tired of hearing how awful Trump is as if the harpies had some better option. By definition, the Pauls and the Walkers and the Cruzs etc couldn't even win their own party's nomination; why would i believe they could have beaten Clinton

The reality on the ground is, he's all of ours president, and the rub seems to be that those of us who supported him are happy about it. I'm not aware of any requirement for the position beyond at least 35, natural born citizen and a resident of the US for at least 14 years. The Constitution is silent on moral character. I am just really tired of being taken to task for having correctly discerned who had the best chance of beating Clinton and having my personal morality questioned because of it.

I will continue to offer alternate opinions about Trump's possible motivations and rationale whenever he is attacked in ways I feel are unjust. Please note that with the exception of a thread about Trump's popularity improving I have only responded to the attacks of others. I find it ludicrous that the very folks whinging about ad hom make nothing but scurilous ad hom attacks on Trump, as if it really were all about his character and its shortcomings just because that's what they thirst for. The pedants doth protest too much, methinks

 

[BugI02]

Once we've been reminded, yet again, that Trump isn't moral enough to be his president why isn't that the end of it? 'Nuff said

Why is it so important for me to recite his catechism?

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'd rather the POTUS were an honest and upstanding person of good repute. But I can't have that. I'm not voting for the morals of the person. I'm voting for the most likely outcome. I don't think you have to be an ******* to be effective.

What excuse do evangelicals have?

 

[Dead Duck]

God's vote.

 

[NKBJ]

Moral Leadership

Is Alice's Restaurant playing in the background?
This thread needs a picture of a president pointing at a statue of Libertas saying "I do not have rex with that woman."

To avoid dealing with reality people hire thugs called politicians to deal with it for them. To steal from and/or kill the people in other countries that pose a threat or have something that's coveted. To do whatever is needed to their fellow citizens that pose a threat or have something that is coveted. While they tell you that you're safe and good and oh yes so very moral.