ERayR Posted November 7, 2016 Posted November 7, 2016 3 minutes ago, Daniel2 said: I definitely don't consider myself uninformed. In fact, I've been more politically active, involved, and self-aware--I've watched all debates, read articles on all sides, followed media coverage from both conservative and liberal sources, etc.--during the course of this election than I have ever been during my life. However, there's been so much mudslinging in this campaign I'm honestly not quite sure what you're referring to. So, I ask again: to what/whom are you referring? In the myriad of scandals that Clinton is in the middle of I will pick two. Benghazi (does that ring a bell?) and misuse of Clinton charitable trust and the funds from it (does influence peddling sound familiar?).
bsjkki Posted November 7, 2016 Posted November 7, 2016 (edited) Well, this accusation was a lie. It was the worst one. How many more were made up? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3914012/Troubled-woman-history-drug-use-claimed-assaulted-Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-sex-party-age-13-FABRICATED-story.html The highly publicized fake rape cases hurt real rape victims. Edited November 7, 2016 by bsjkki
Daniel2 Posted November 7, 2016 Posted November 7, 2016 (edited) 48 minutes ago, ERayR said: In the myriad of scandals that Clinton is in the middle of I will pick two. Benghazi (does that ring a bell?) and misuse of Clinton charitable trust and the funds from it (does influence peddling sound familiar?). First.... Benghazi...? Really......? NINE reports costing MILLIONS of dollars by House Republicans consistently demonstrated that Clinton didn't do anything wrong: House Benghazi Report Finds No New Evidence of Wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton (New York Times) House Republicans Spent Millions Of Dollars On Benghazi Committee To Exonerate Clinton (Huffington Post) Republicans release Benghazi report with no new evidence against Hillary Clinton (LA Times) Republican Benghazi Committee ends with a whimper (MSNBC) And finally, from PolitiFact: Clinton: 7 Benghazi probes so far Quote House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy suggested last week that Congress’ current investigation into the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, is a political move against former Hillary Clinton, and she was quick to jump on the Republican’s gaffe. In an interview Monday morning, Clinton was visibly frustrated with the ongoing Benghazi investigation. "There have been seven investigations led mostly by Republicans in the Congress," Clinton said. "And they were nonpartisan, and they reached conclusions that, first of all, I and nobody did anything wrong, but there were changes we could make. This committee was set up, as they have admitted, for the purpose of making a partisan political issue out of the deaths of four Americans." Is Clinton correct that there have been seven and now eight investigations into Benghazi? We started counting and found she was largely accurate.... Clinton said, "There have been seven investigations (of Benghazi) led mostly by Republicans in the Congress" that concluded "nobody did anything wrong, but there were changes we could make." Clinton’s number is correct: there were seven previous congressional probes into the Benghazi attack. Saying these committees were led "mostly by Republicans" is also a fair assertion: the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs were the only two committees not led by Republicans. As for her comment that there was no overt wrongdoing, just room for improvement, that’s a rosy assessment. But it is also largely accurate. We rate this claim Mostly True. In sum, so far as Benghazi is concerned, this issue has been HIGHLY vetted, studied, and documented. And it's fairly obvious that it was an issue seized upon as an attempt to politicize the deaths of four Americans in an overt attempt to smear Clinton. And your invocation of it shows just how much it works, despite the facts of the case. Edited November 7, 2016 by Daniel2 1
ERayR Posted November 7, 2016 Posted November 7, 2016 3 minutes ago, Daniel2 said: First.... Benghazi...? Really......? NINE reports costing MILLIONS of dollars by House Republicans consistently demonstrated that Clinton didn't do anything wrong: House Benghazi Report Finds No New Evidence of Wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton (New York Times) House Republicans Spent Millions Of Dollars On Benghazi Committee To Exonerate Clinton (Huffington Post) Republicans release Benghazi report with no new evidence against Hillary Clinton (LA Times) Republican Benghazi Committee ends with a whimper (MSNBC) And finally, from PolitiFact: Clinton: 7 Benghazi probes so far In sum, so far as Benghazi is concerned, this issue has been HIGHLY vetted, studied, and documented. And it's fairly obvious that it was an issue seized upon as an attempt to politicize the deaths of four Americans in an overt attempt to smear Clinton. And your invocation of it shows just how much it works, despite the facts of the case. The conclusions were not that she did nothing wrong but it was the Obama justice department which declined to prosecute. Your articles all come from the Clinton/Democrat propaganda arm. I don't care what you choose to believe but don't blow that smoke at my backside, it just exposes your lack of credible information.
Daniel2 Posted November 8, 2016 Posted November 8, 2016 (edited) 42 minutes ago, ERayR said: The conclusions were not that she did nothing wrong but it was the Obama justice department which declined to prosecute. Your articles all come from the Clinton/Democrat propaganda arm. I don't care what you choose to believe but don't blow that smoke at my backside, it just exposes your lack of credible information. If my sources are allegedly all "from the Clinton/Democrat propaganda arm," please show me direct quotes from any of the nine nonpartisan Investigative Congressional Reports on Benghazi stating that Clinton WAS at fault and/or deserving of being prosecuted. While you're searching for those quotes, let me remind everyone of an Op Ed piece recently published by the Deseret News by a former Attorney General of Utah (assuming you won't find the LDS Church-owned newspaper to be a member of "the Clinton/Democrat propaganda arm"): Quote Let's talk about Hillary from a legal, constitutional standpoint http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865665422/My-view-Lets-talk-about-Hillary-from-a-legal-constitutional-standpoint.html By Paul Van Dam For the Deseret News Published: Oct. 23, 2016 12:05 a.m.Updated: Oct. 22, 2016 7:55 p.m. I just watched a political ad accusing Hillary Clinton of a series of criminal acts and calling for prosecution and imprisonment. This ad is, in my view, over the line. Having been a prosecutor, district attorney and Utah’s attorney general during my legal career, I believe I have a pretty good idea of the evidence required to charge someone with crimes. I’ve taken time to look in depth at the alleged crimes candidate Clinton is supposed to have committed, and here’s my take: Hillary Clinton has never been charged with a crime because the quality and quantity of evidence necessary has never been achieved by those seeking her indictments. Many of you will be old enough to remember the Clinton presidency and the special prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, appointed to pursue, Bill and Hillary. After four years, $70 million expended, thousands of hours of investigation by the FBI, Justice Department lawyers, several grand juries, and multiple legal teams from congressional staffs, the whole investigation came up with two counts against Bill Clinton. These charges were: perjury and obstruction of justice brought in an impeachment proceeding before Congress. The House indicted and the Senate held a trial. In the end the Senate voted not guilty on both counts. The House and Senate were both Republican controlled. No indictments were brought by the grand juries impaneled. So why is there a hue and cry to send Hillary to prison? Her past has undergone one of the longest, most expensive and futile examinations in American history. Currently the Congress has spent additional time and money on Benghazi and emails. It seems the FBI, which Republicans have loved in the past, is no longer credible, since the agency’s director and the current attorney general have said that no crimes were committed. Hillary’s actions regarding her foundation have not been found fraudulent. So what’s a prosecutor to do? There is insufficient evidence to charge, convict and imprison this woman and that’s how our beloved system works. You need evidence convincing beyond a reasonable doubt. Hillary Clinton has been under the microscope for 30 years. Finally, I read a very disparaging remark about the fact that Hillary at age 27 represented the accused rapist of a 12-year-old child and “got him off.” This must prove what a devious person she is. Fact was she was appointed to represent the man by a judge and tried to get out of the assignment. But as many young lawyers know, pro bono assignments happen and in our country everyone gets a lawyer in criminal matters. This defendant finally pled guilty to a lesser charge and the system worked as designed. It happens every day and most criminal cases are plea-bargained, a necessity of our underfunded, understaffed system. So should Hillary be put in jail? Not by any legal, constitutional standard I know of. But then we’re talking politics here and those standards don’t apply … but should. If you just plain don’t like her, that’s fine, but let’s keep the conversation on a factual basis. Donald Trump has done sufficient damage with hyperbole in politics. Edited November 8, 2016 by Daniel2
Darren10 Posted November 8, 2016 Posted November 8, 2016 4 hours ago, Gray said: I heard it with my own two ears, Darren. He said that as a celebrity he *could* grab a woman by her *****. He did say he would just start kissing women "like a magnet" without asking. If that's sexual assault then I guess you're right, Trump did admit to sexual assault. I just do not classify "kissing" as sexual assault, and frankly hope it is not. Improper, absolutely but not and "assault" of a grievous sexual nature.
Marmonboy Posted November 8, 2016 Posted November 8, 2016 As far as trying to nab Clinton on criminal behavior, just remember one thing--she is a lawyer, too. 1
Darren10 Posted November 8, 2016 Posted November 8, 2016 3 hours ago, Meadowchik said: One thing some of us realize is how many barriers Trump has broken in his campaign, some rarely or never ever done before, and not in a good way. Trump has been the most ignorant of nominees, he's undermined the confidence in the voting process before the election, he's spent a ton of energy fighting his own political allies, he's refused point blank to acknowledge things we've seen or heard ourselves, he's joked about his opponent getting assassinated, about Russia hacking the US, he's attacked POWs, veterans, families of dead soldiers. I was never a fan of Clinton, but Trump has made me want her in the White House. He's an ignorant, authoritative, vulgar, unserious man. I know there are serious objections to Clinton. Were it a legitimate statesman running against her on the R ticket I'd be against her. But the nomination of Trump has created a non-partisan, critical emergency: he's a disaster for law and order, for democracy and decency. If he gets elected I won't enjoy the proof of that, but I wonder how much further his supporters will sink with him. As much ss I despise Trump, I am utterly confused how his antics has lead to you "want" a woman into the White House whose own negligence has lead to the death of a US ambassador and valiant Navy Seals soldiers who went way above the call of duty and decided to stay and defend that ambassador. She also lied directly tonthe families of the Seals (and ambassador too I think). Furthermore, a woman who has delibrately destroyed the reputation of women whom her husband took sexual advantage of. You want THAT in the White House because of Trump??? 2
Darren10 Posted November 8, 2016 Posted November 8, 2016 3 hours ago, Gray said: The fact that Trump was not endorsed by the Deseret News tells me that the leaders of the church do not support Trump either. Not that that should necessarily sway anyone's views, but given that this is an LDS board I think it's relevent. Don't let Deseret News dictate your conclusion on whom the Bretheren support or not. I've no doubt some will or have voted for Trump, and some for Hillary, and perhaps even Johnson, Stiller, or McMullin. 1
Daniel2 Posted November 8, 2016 Posted November 8, 2016 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Darren10 said: As much ss I despise Trump, I am utterly confused how his antics has lead to you "want" a woman into the White House whose own negligence has lead to the death of a US ambassador and valiant Navy Seals soldiers who went way above the call of duty and decided to stay and defend that ambassador. She also lied directly tonthe families of the Seals (and ambassador too I think). Furthermore, a woman who has delibrately destroyed the reputation of women whom her husband took sexual advantage of. You want THAT in the White House because of Trump??? I think many of us echo the Opinion Piece ran by the Deseret News Editorial Board... Quote In our opinion: Donald Trump should resign his candidacy Deseret News editorial http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865664336/In-our-opinion-Donald-Trump-should-resign-his-candidacy.html Published: Oct. 8, 2016 12:15 p.m.Updated: Oct. 11, 2016 10:51 a.m. For 80 years, the Deseret News has not entered into the troubled waters of presidential endorsement. We are neutral on matters of partisan politics. We do, however, feel a duty to speak clearly on issues that affect the well-being and morals of the nation. Accordingly, today we call on Donald Trump to step down from his pursuit of the American presidency. In democratic elections, ideas have consequences, leadership matters and character counts. The idea that women secretly welcome the unbridled and aggressive sexual advances of powerful men has led to the mistreatment, sorrow and subjugation of countless women for far too much of human history. The notion that strength emanates from harsh, divisive and unbending rhetorical flourish mistakenly equates leadership with craven intimidation. The belief that the party and the platform matter more than the character of the candidate ignores the wisdom of the ages that, “when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.” (Proverbs 29:2) We understand that politicians and presidential candidates are human and that everyone makes mistakes. We do not believe that what is expressed in an unguarded moment of conversation should be the full measure of an individual. And we unquestionably support the principle that people deserve forgiveness, compassion and a second chance. But history affirms that leaders' examples either elevate or demean the lives of those being led. When choosing the ostensible leader of the free world, the American electorate requires the clear assurance that their chosen candidate will consistently put the well-being of others ahead of his or her own personal gratification. The most recent revelations of Trump’s lewdness disturb us not only because of his vulgar objectification of women, but also because they poignantly confirm Trump’s inability to self-govern. What oozes from this audio is evil. We hear a married man give smooth, smug and self-congratulatory permission to his intense impulses, allowing them to outweigh the most modest sense of decency, fidelity and commitment. And although it speaks volumes about sexual morality, it goes to the heart of all ethical behavior. Trump’s banter belies a willingness to use and discard other human beings at will. That characteristic is the essence of a despot. Nor is this an isolated incident. His reprehensible sexual speech confirms troubling reports and outrageous outbursts that have dogged his campaign from the beginning. Another example appeared earlier this week detailing Trump’s language and behavior on his reality television show, "The Apprentice." The Associated Press “interviewed more than 20 people — former crew members, editors and contestants — who described crass behavior by Trump behind the scenes of the long-running hit show.” In the face of these revelations, it is disheartening to see otherwise decent individuals now attempting to defend Trump’s talk, dismissing it as mere “locker room” bravado. At the time of the audio recording, Trump was not a hormonal teenage athlete, but rather a 60-year-old husband of an expectant mother and the father of four children. America’s locker rooms deserve better. When Donald Trump’s running mate Indiana Gov. Mike Pence visited Utah and met with members of the Deseret News Editorial Board, he assured us that Mr. Trump was a "good man" who held "the ideals and values” of Utahns. Likewise, while visiting the Beehive State, Donald Trump Jr. told us that his father was running because of the “values held dear in this community.” Considering his conduct and comportment, we do not believe Trump holds the ideals and values of this community or this paper. We are grateful for the courageous decision by many of Utah’s leading Republican politicians to renounce the top of their ticket. Some will see our denunciation of Trump as tantamount to an endorsement of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. That is not the case. Although she comes with extraordinary experience, Clinton promotes social and economic policies we cannot support and she too has a history of self-dealing that gives us significant pause. Should Clinton prevail in this presidential contest, we trust she — and those in the Congress that hold the presidency in check — will recognize that her likely victory against a self-wounded candidate is not a mandate for her specific platform, but rather a repudiation of Trump’s flaws. We prefer to stand for something rather than against someone. But this is one of those rare moments where it is necessary to take a clear stand against the hucksterism, misogyny, narcissism and latent despotism that infect the Trump campaign even as we hope for a more auspicious future of liberty, prosperity and peace for the nation. As the next few consequential weeks unfold, we trust the American people, as they vote their conscience, will provide a clarion call for sound ideas, true leadership and proven character from our next administration and Congress. Trump cannot answer that call. We ask him to step aside. Your invocation of Benghazi, despite the overwhelming and thorough evidence that indicates Clinton was not guilty of any wrongdoing, is unfortunate, especially in light of the views expressed above. Edited November 8, 2016 by Daniel2 1
Darren10 Posted November 8, 2016 Posted November 8, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Meadowchik said: I've been Republican my whole life and very partisan for most of that. But I'm deeply ashamed at how far gone my party is, voters included, to fight the left. It's as if the "moral majority" dropped its brain somewhere only to very rapidly become the immoral minority. I myself came very close to not voting for the Republican nominee for the first time in my life. Edited November 8, 2016 by Darren10
Darren10 Posted November 8, 2016 Posted November 8, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Daniel2 said: Are you saying a porn star doesn't have ethical or moral standing to claim victimization if she is sexually assaulted outside of her line of work...? Or do you mean a porn star's testimony can't be credible simply because of her profession? Or do I have both of those wrong, and you mean something entirely different? If so, could you please clarify? According to the article, Trump did nothing but make a proposition to Drake the porn star to get money to sleep with him. She is quoted in the article for wanting to make a stand against Trump's mysogyny. So, how does a wonan who made many people rich, the vast majority men, by giving sex make a stand against male mysogyny? Of course no is no and as far as I know, after a few attempts, Trump no longer pursued her. So, yeah, my confusion stands. Edited November 8, 2016 by Darren10
Darren10 Posted November 8, 2016 Posted November 8, 2016 7 minutes ago, Daniel2 said: I think many of us echo the Opinion Piece ran by the Deseret News Editorial Board... Your invocation of Benghazi, despite the overwhelming and thorough evidence that indicates Clinton was not guilty of any wrongdoing, is unfortunate, especially in light of the views expressed above. My contention on Hillary over Benghazi is her negligence. The reason thst there was no evidence of a standown order made was because no help was ever given until several hours after the attack. Then she lied to the family of victims of that attack as per the family's testimony.
ERayR Posted November 8, 2016 Posted November 8, 2016 5 minutes ago, Daniel2 said: I think many of us echo the Opinion Piece ran by the Deseret News... All I can say at this point is that I hope you find some comfort in this as Clinton's policies, ignorance and ideology destroys what is left.
Daniel2 Posted November 8, 2016 Posted November 8, 2016 4 minutes ago, Darren10 said: According to the article, Trump did nothing but make a proposition to Drake the porn star to get money to sleep with him. She is quoted in the article for wanting tko make a stand against Trump's mysogyny. So, how dies a wonan who made many peopke rich, the vast majority men, by giving sex make a stand agsinst msle mysogyny? Of course no is no and as far as I know, after a few attempts, Trump no longer pursued her. So, yeah, my confusion stands. I've typed a couple different responses, but keep deleting them because I'm just not sure how to respond to the justifications you're offering above. At the end of today, the eve of the election, I'll stand with the Deseret News Editorial piece and the values it so eloquently called for. 1
Darren10 Posted November 8, 2016 Posted November 8, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Daniel2 said: I've typed a couple different responses, but keep deleting them because I'm just not sure how to respond to the justifications you're offering above. At the end of today, the eve of the election, I'll stand with the Deseret News Editorial piece and the values it so eloquently called for. Which makes getting political a no win situation so far as a spiritual paper is concerned. I'm still incensed that Deseret did not call for Hillary to step aside. Edited November 8, 2016 by Darren10 1
Daniel2 Posted November 8, 2016 Posted November 8, 2016 (edited) 6 minutes ago, ERayR said: All I can say at this point is that I hope you find some comfort in this as Clinton's policies, ignorance and ideology destroys what is left. I'd encourage you and everyone else to listen to the Sam Harris piece I quoted earlier. It enumerates all the many reasons why, despite Clinton's admitted faults, my conviction remains that Trump is and would far more dangerous and destructive for our country than Clinton would (and, God willing, will) ever be. (See: The Lesser of Two Evils, by Sam Harris) Edited November 8, 2016 by Daniel2 2
ERayR Posted November 8, 2016 Posted November 8, 2016 3 hours ago, Meadowchik said: I've been Republican my whole life and very partisan for most of that. But I'm deeply ashamed at how far gone my party is, voters included, to fight the left. It's as if the "moral majority" dropped its brain somewhere only to very rapidly become the immoral minority. Read Mormon Chapters 1 thru 6 to understand why the opposition to Clinton has been so intense.
Tacenda Posted November 8, 2016 Posted November 8, 2016 I like what Dan has to say here.... http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2016/11/why-i-intend-to-vote-for-evan-mcmullin-tomorrow.html 2
Tacenda Posted November 8, 2016 Posted November 8, 2016 55 minutes ago, Darren10 said: My contention on Hillary over Benghazi is her negligence. The reason thst there was no evidence of a standown order made was because no help was ever given until several hours after the attack. Then she lied to the family of victims of that attack as per the family's testimony. CFR if you don't mind. I've fact checked this accusation, and it isn't as you say, but please feel free to prove me wrong.
Calm Posted November 8, 2016 Posted November 8, 2016 1 hour ago, Darren10 said: He said that as a celebrity he *could* grab a woman by her *****. He did say he would just start kissing women "like a magnet" without asking. If that's sexual assault then I guess you're right, Trump did admit to sexual assault. I just do not classify "kissing" as sexual assault, and frankly hope it is not. Improper, absolutely but not and "assault" of a grievous sexual nature. Kissing without asking someone if it is alright first (assuming this is outside of romantic play that has been mutually approached by both) is sexual assault, especially if it is a larger man who moves in on you, restricting your ability to move, pull away. Any attempt to use a woman's body forpleasure without first ensuring her approval is grievous. I don't know if guys would feel the same, but all the women I have talked to about it feel assaulted by such. 3
Darren10 Posted November 8, 2016 Posted November 8, 2016 1 hour ago, Calm said: Kissing without asking someone if it is alright first (assuming this is outside of romantic play that has been mutually approached by both) is sexual assault, especially if it is a larger man who moves in on you, restricting your ability to move, pull away. Any attempt to use a woman's body forpleasure without first ensuring her approval is grievous. I don't know if guys would feel the same, but all the women I have talked to about it feel assaulted by such. I have to refead the article to see if it eas reported that Trump restricted Drake's movement. If not I qualify this as a stupid move from Trump. I speak as a man who will have his daughter trained to instantly kill a male person if he gets stupid with her. While I agree it's morally grievous, "Any attempt to use a woman's body forpleasure without first ensuring her approval is grievous", but it is not always "sexual assault" in my book, especially not in a legal sense. Everything you outlined applies perfectly to Bill Clinton and his cohort Hillary.
Darren10 Posted November 8, 2016 Posted November 8, 2016 2 hours ago, Tacenda said: CFR if you don't mind. I've fact checked this accusation, and it isn't as you say, but please feel free to prove me wrong. Here: Quote The "stand-down" theory centers on a Special Operations team — a detachment leader, a medic, a communications expert and a weapons operator with his foot in a cast — that was stopped from flying from Tripoli to Benghazi after the attacks of Sept. 11-12, 2012, had ended. Instead, it was instructed to help protect and care for those being evacuated from Benghazi and from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. The senior military officer who issued the instruction to "remain in place" and the detachment leader who received it said it was the right decision and has been widely mischaracterized. The order was to remain in Tripoli and protect some three dozen embassy personnel rather than fly to Benghazi some 600 miles away after all Americans there would have been evacuated. And the medic is credited with saving the life of an evacuee from the attacks. https://www.yahoo.com/news/officers-no-stand-down-order-benghazi-062821082--politics.html?ref=gs No help was sent. Period.
Tacenda Posted November 8, 2016 Posted November 8, 2016 19 minutes ago, Darren10 said: Here: https://www.yahoo.com/news/officers-no-stand-down-order-benghazi-062821082--politics.html?ref=gs No help was sent. Period. My rebuttal... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/may/16/fact-checking-benghazi-our-most-recent-round-/
Calm Posted November 8, 2016 Posted November 8, 2016 1 hour ago, Darren10 said: Everything you outlined applies perfectly to Bill Clinton and his cohort Hillary. Most definitely 1
Recommended Posts