SHOULD THE NEXT PRESIDENT BE A POTENTIAL SEX OFFENDER

[2Dbunk]

Now that Hillary Clinton's e-mails are about to bury her in this election season, the United States is faced with the [strike]good[/strike] diSTINKED possibility of electing a mega-maniac as president. Donald Trump has bragged about grabbing women inappropriately, and a dozen women have come forward to confirm his propensity to force himself (with the aid of tic tacs -- HIS OWN WORDS) into unwanted kissing and embraces.

Both major party candidates are poster ogres for (you name it) ________________.
Interestingly, both candidates are church going Christians (professed religious entities endlessly touting family values). Is something wrong here? This is not how are country started or survived for over 200 years!

So, why are Christians putting up such gross candidates for president? Is the Democratic process in danger of failing?

[Elijah John]

If Hillary is indicted she will be impeached, right? Well, who becomes president -- none other than Tim Kaine! No Hillary, no Trump -- problem solved!

If Hillary is not indicted she stays as president. She is innocent until proven guilty -- that is the American way.

Or, if Trump is impeached, we could get Mike Pence, the best one of the four!

[Divine Insight]

If Hillary is indicted she will be impeached, right? Well, who becomes president -- none other than Tim Kaine! No Hillary, no Trump -- problem solved!

If Hillary is not indicted she stays as president. She is innocent until proven guilty -- that is the American way.

Or, if Trump is impeached, we could get Mike Pence, the best one of the four!

Mike Pence is a religious extremist by his own admission. He continually claims to be a Christian FIRST and an American second.

Well, excuse me but America is not a Theocracy, therefore anyone who says that they are going to put their religion BEFORE the interests of the USA has no business running for president anyway.

I would never vote to Mike Pence for president, precisely because he is a self-confessed religious extremist who places his religion BEFORE our Free Democracy.

That basically amounts to putting Theocracy BEFORE Democracy. And that's a big no no. Pence has no business in any governmental role until he realizes that American democracy must come BEFORE his favorite religious affiliation.

The last thing we need is a president who is trying to establish his religious beliefs into LAW. That's against the constitution of the USA.

So I would not support Pence as president. He's clearly far too religious. We need a president who understands what a Free Democracy actually is. Tim Kaine would be far better. He's also very religious, but at least he understand the need for separation of church and state in American democracy.

There's nothing wrong with being religious as long as a person recognizes the importance of separation of Church and State, and Mike Pence does not indicate that he fully understands the significance of the need for this separation in American politics.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 22 by Divine Insight]

I think Mike Pence does repect the separation of Church and State.

Just because he says he's a Christian first, does not mean he wants to establish a Theocracy. That's a leap.

Also, did he say that he is a Christian before he is an American? Or did he say he is a Christian before he is a Republican.

The way I remember it,(thinkin' out loud here) he said "I am a Christian first, an American second, and a Republican third". Or something to that effect.

Even so, to be a Christian first does not by definition, nor by necessity, mean that one wants to establish a Theocratic form of government.

I think Mike Pence handily won that debate against Tim Kaine. And Pence is one of the reasons I feel better about voting for Trump, in spite of (not because of) Trump's personality and past misdeeds/ill considered words.

[Divine Insight]

And Pence is one of the reasons I feel better about voting for Trump, in spite of (not because of) Trump's personality and past misdeeds/ill considered words.

I think that's exactly why Trump chose him. He chose Pence precisely to get the Evangelical vote.

[Elijah John]

And Pence is one of the reasons I feel better about voting for Trump, in spite of (not because of) Trump's personality and past misdeeds/ill considered words.

I think that's exactly why Trump chose him. He chose Pence precisely to get the Evangelical vote.

I think that's part of it, but I'm not an Evangelical. It goes beyond that.

Pence is a reassuring presence on the Trump ticket. Not another rogue or "pirate personality" like Trump.

Pence stabilizes the ship to some degree.

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 12 by OnceConvinced]

It is called strategic voting. It is a rational strategy in any winner take all electoral system. For example, with Canada's electoral system, I was faced with eight or so candidates for MP. Only three were from major parties. The incumbent was not my first choice, but he was a better choice than the candidate that was in second place in the polls and came rather close beating the incumbent last time. Should I have voted for my favourite candidate who had no chance of winning? Or should I have voted for the incumbent, ensuring that the second place lout would not get in?

[myth-one.com]

I think that's exactly why Trump chose him. He chose Pence precisely to get the Evangelical vote.

Trump bought the evangelical vote by promising them that he would repeal what is called the Johnson Amendment.

. . . the support that they've given me has been so amazing and has had such a big reason for me being here tonight.

They have much to contribute to our politics, yet our laws prevent you from speaking your minds from your own pulpits. An amendment pushed by Lyndon Johnson many years ago threatens religious institutions with the loss of their tax exempt status if they openly advocate their political views. Their voice has been taken away.

I am going to work very hard to repeal that language, and to protect free speech for all Americans!

It was a simple negotiated purchase.

The art of the deal.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 20 by Elijah John]

I believe Bill Clinton's accusers. He has been accused of worse than Trump has. Can you prove THEIR claims, are false.

That is history. Let's stay with the present which many will agree is more important. But, if you insist, Bill Clinton was not a bad president, creating 15,000,000 jobs on his watch and balancing the budget -- even showing a surplus.

It's Trump's policies, not his personality, that wins my vote and support.

What about his character (narcissism, insulting deceit, racism, bullying, tending toward sexual predator, and lack of ethics) -- you didn't mention his character resume or is that not important? IMO Hillary's biggest flaw is not divorcing Bill, but then "divorce" is a very unchristian thing. Wish to comment on that?

But to deal with only established facts.

-Fact, Bill Clinton WAS impeached, (and I believe disbarred in some states from practicing law could be wrong about that one though)

-Fact. Hillary Clinton IS under FBI investigation*.

Bill was disbarred for five years in Arkansas, I think for perjury. The latest probe into Hillary's friend's server has been dropped, period. Why do you address THAT "-Fact" with only an asterisk?

[Strider324]

Elijah John scribed:

"Not convicted" is that the standard now in presidential politics?

Of course it is. Political figures are sued for bullshit, partisan reasons every single day. You and I are not. Therefore, the acid test is not "How many times have you been sued or charged", but rather "Was any of that nonsense true?"

Need I remind you that Clinton has been investigated THIRTEEN TIMES so far for Benghazi by a Republican controlled House and Senate - while these same partisan politicians investigated Bush and Rove - accused of Treason, losing 66 lives at American consulates and embassies, and deleting 22 MILLION emails....wait for it.... ONE TIME.

That's partisan politics at its insidious worst. You should be embarrassed to have been duped by this obvious inequity.

Compared to the number of lawsuits Trump has lost, the Clintons are model citizens.

I believe Bill Clinton's accusers.

How very accommodating and self-serving of you. Many of them brought suit. None prevailed. Apparently that fact is lost on you. Or as is common with the theist POV, facts don't matter.

He has been accused of worse than Trump has. Can you prove THEIR claims, are false.

Huh??? Are you seriously asking anyone to prove a negative?? Cool. Can you prove the claims against Trump are false? How about the claims against Cosby? Yes, let's spit on due process and start with a presumption of guilt. That's reprehensible. Are you an American?

If not, it is still a matter of opinion and greater suspicion.

It's only suspicious to those like you who conveniently rushed to judgment against Clinton, while you are piously willing to assume Trump is innocent. Your confirmation bias in showing.

And how 'bout you with Trump. He hasn't been convicted either, has he.

Of sex crimes? Nope. A simple search will show you the dozens of lawsuits he has lost. How many has Hillary lost?

Regarding Hillary's corruption...seems extensive. This isn't court, I don't have to prove it.

Seems extensive to those unable or simply unwilling to search the public record for the truth. Allegations are not the same as Crimes. Why are you so willing to assume guilt for Clinton but not Trump? That points to an utter lack of objectivity.

And no, people who pretend allegations are as good as convictions don't have to prove anything. It is enough for them to simply make the allegation and them slink back into the shadows and smile, knowing there are enough idiots in the world who cannot think critically that will credit the allegations and spit on the rule of Law.

Just expressing why I don't trust either of them. Both Clintons reek of corruption, and I agree, Trump hasn't been a paragon either.

Could you at least TRY to be honest here? You frickin HATE the Clintons and are simply embarrassed by Trump. Trump hasn't been a paragon?? Lol. Yeah, and Pol Pot simply had a mild case of anger mismanagement......

It's Trump's policies, not his personality, that wins my vote and support.

Please cite them. Do you mean his policy to build a wall against the evil Mexican rapists? Or his policy to grab the crotch of any woman he sees? Or his policy to kiss Putin's ass? Or his policy to tell our allies that they can go screw themselves if he's elected because they will no longer be able to count on America? Or his policy to make the rich richer and the poor can just go away? Please enlighten me on these great policy positions of this vastly experienced political genius.

-Fact, Bill Clinton WAS impeached, (and I believe disbarred in some states from practicing law could be wrong about that one though)

Newsflash, Bill isn't running. The fact that you are willing to engage in 'guilt by association" speaks to your character.

-Fact. Hillary Clinton IS under FBI investigation*.

And everyone with an IQ above 12 knew this was a vacuous and politically motivated attack without merit - as has been proven. You, of course, will continue to be 'suspicious'.....

You comfortable with those facts regarding your candidate and her husband?

Comfortable that Hillary has handled herself with presidential grace in the face of these vicious and unethical attacks on her over Benghazi and Emailgate? Quite. Certainly more comfortable than you are that your candidate laughs about assaulting women, laughs about the physically disabled, laughs about how many lawsuits he has lost, laughs about how he knows more about the military, due to his pampered years in a military prep school (the transcripts from which he also will not release) - than our generals do - and has Zero political, foreign policy, domestic policy, or statesmanship abilities.

So I go back to my original position. It is very sad that this is the best we as a Nation could come up with. With 15 very qualified Republicans, some of whom Trump trounced with insults..

We can now agree. Republicans have screwed this pooch so thoroughly that a marginal candidate like Hillary will likely win in a rout. Mondale could have won this thing.

Or same old, same old Hillary Clinton, when we could have had Joe Biden instead. At least Joe Biden is amusing. But with Clinton, we get economic regression, and continued degradation of the culture.

Degradation of the culture?? You mean she wants to (gasp!) degrade the values of Trump that call for women to be treated more biblically - like chattel, sex slaves, and objects of fondling?? She wants our veterans and the disabled to be treated with respect?? She wants candidates to have the honesty to disclose their tax returns??

Oh please, Mr Trump! Save us from this degradation!!

You should probably stick to religious debate. Politics and American values is not your forte.

[OnceConvinced]

Good points about voting to keep the worst candidate out. I can see logic in that. Still seems to put us in a vicious cycle though.