Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I will draw the line at not holding damning information until after the primaries when it is too late to get rid of a candidate without handing a normally safe GOP senate seat over to the democrats by default.
The timing of the 40 year old allegations proves it is not about morality but is just a "gotcha" style political game. The voters are not obligated to play along with these games.
Do I have this right? Because you suspect the timing, you're giving a green light to vote for a molester? Regarding the timing, if you've noticed there's been many women from many walks of life recently admitting having been preyed on by a sexual predator. Are all these women part of this political plot?
I think not. Rather it's because as more and more women speak out, it gives others the courage to do likewise. This is just another one of those subjects like racism that white males would rather not talk about or admit, much less do anything about it...
Is a child molester better than having a Dem voted in? That was the question on TV this morning. Well, the answer is a simple YES.
The ignorant Dems just don't get it. That is why they can't understand how someone like Trump ever got in. They thought that when Trump's 'grab her by the *****' comment was broadcast it would have been the end of Trump. Just as many other of Trump's extreme comments and views.
Lets look at this one '*****' issue in realistic terms to help the poor Dems understand how the real world is.
OK, a Rep says to themselves Trump is terrible, he disrespects women, so I will vote for Hil...and then she can confiscate my guns.
OK, a Rep says to themselves, I wont go for a child molester, let me vote Dem...and then they can confiscate my guns.
The Dems have proven time and again what happens to guns when they control a state. Their long term dream is to confiscate all guns in America. When you vote Dem you vote for gun confiscation plain and simple...that is the bottom line.
I think someone here is in need of psychological counseling.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 22 hours ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,599,037 times
Reputation: 5697
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
In my opinion, a child molester should not only be in prison, said child molester should be subjected to mandatory castration up release from prison.
Chemical castration maybe, but I fear surgical castration violates the Eighth Amendment. Sorry, mariner, but as tempted as I am to agree here, I gotta say "no dice" for this one.
Is a child molester better than having a Dem voted in? That was the question on TV this morning. Well, the answer is a simple YES.
The ignorant Dems just don't get it. That is why they can't understand how someone like Trump ever got in. They thought that when Trump's 'grab her by the *****' comment was broadcast it would have been the end of Trump. Just as many other of Trump's extreme comments and views.
Lets look at this one '*****' issue in realistic terms to help the poor Dems understand how the real world is.
OK, a Rep says to themselves Trump is terrible, he disrespects women, so I will vote for Hil...and then she can confiscate my guns.
OK, a Rep says to themselves, I wont go for a child molester, let me vote Dem...and then they can confiscate my guns.
The Dems have proven time and again what happens to guns when they control a state. Their long term dream is to confiscate all guns in America. When you vote Dem you vote for gun confiscation plain and simple...that is the bottom line.
Is a child molester better than having a Dem voted in? That was the question on TV this morning. Well, the answer is a simple YES.
The ignorant Dems just don't get it. That is why they can't understand how someone like Trump ever got in. They thought that when Trump's 'grab her by the *****' comment was broadcast it would have been the end of Trump. Just as many other of Trump's extreme comments and views.
Lets look at this one '*****' issue in realistic terms to help the poor Dems understand how the real world is.
OK, a Rep says to themselves Trump is terrible, he disrespects women, so I will vote for Hil...and then she can confiscate my guns.
OK, a Rep says to themselves, I wont go for a child molester, let me vote Dem...and then they can confiscate my guns.
The Dems have proven time and again what happens to guns when they control a state. Their long term dream is to confiscate all guns in America. When you vote Dem you vote for gun confiscation plain and simple...that is the bottom line.
What makes you think third party would be a better choice? Are third party candidates immune to corruption?
We can't be sure that a third party would be better but we can be sure that the two main parties have had more then enough time in office to show that they are BOTH corrupt. it doesn't matter who were talking about Obama, Hillary or Trump we spend more time reading about said scandal that they are caught up in then doing good for the country.
Both parties spend too much time making each other rich to say that there is a difference is naïve. Their job is to divide us as a country and get rich while doing so, while we suffer for it. They throw us crumbs from the table and act like it's a big deal.
I know I've ask you to show me where one party regardless of which one has done something that has helped BOTH parties. I never got an answer that I have seen, and it doesn't matter because you can't show me. In the end there is no difference they only want to make themselves more money and passing more laws to keep making more money.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 22 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,550 posts, read 16,539,320 times
Reputation: 6033
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
What makes you think third party would be a better choice? Are third party candidates immune to corruption? When did character begin to matter again? In Clinton's case, we were told it didn't matter.
As for Moore; so far all we have are "allegations." No proof or corroboration. It's all only hearsay. The "yearbook" is invalid because it's clearly fake (his assistant wouldn't have had any reason to place her initials after his "signature" in the yearbook).
Does the fact that Moore vehemently denies the allegations not matter? Do we convict people based only on allegations? Then why wasn't Clinton "convicted" in the same way? Everyone brushed off his accusers. They were "trailer trash."
You remember Roy Moore was kicked out(not resigned, not lost re-election, but removed from the bench) TWICE
The rape accusations are actually secondary.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
