• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump meets with Bill Clinton accusers ahead of second debate

What if just gives blowjobs to interns in the Oval Office and lies to federal grand juries? Would that be acceptable?
/

Kindly explain yourself: What is your point and what does it have to do with the 2016 election?
 
Last edited:
why? she's not any better with the "Football".....


voting the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil

True... but there are gradients of difference. Once, at least, knows what she is doing and the other has no clue. I am not wild about the Clinton choice; but Trump is not a choice.
 
If the predator's wife was active in demonizing the victims then I would say it is fair game.

But its irrelevent. Its fine for DT to bring it up I guess, but its not a part of the story about Donald Trump who is responsible for his own actions. The media isn't responsible for enforcing moral relativism in a story.
 
/

Kindly explain yourself: What is your point and what does it have to do with the 2016 election?

My point is giving blowjobs in the Oval Office and lying about it to a federal grand jury was acceptable behavior to a lot of Democrats back when Bill was president. What he did in his private life wasn't as important as what he did for jobs and the economy, they said. Did his behavior "desecrate the office of POTUS"? Apparently not, because they still revere him as a hero and a "great president." Now, in 2016, is Trump's behavior as a private citizen running for president more of a black mark on the office than Clinton's as a sitting president in the 1990s? I don't think so.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1066409752 said:
I wonder if you'll even remember his name in a year.

Who? Johnson, who I've known of for years dating back to when he was a governor? Or Weld, who was a very popular governor of the state that is about 20 miles down the road from me, and who I remember vividly when he was governor?

The name I hope to forget in a year is Donald Trump. I would like to forget Hillary Clinton's name as well, but the Trumpbots have made it so that she will be President.
 
You admitted yourself that she's the lesser of two evils... so I'm not sure what we're disagreeing on.


I think it's lateral actually.... maybe trump slightly better for not being a criminal, and for his anti-war stance....
 
meh. The article was published in 1998. It is from a "Jane Doe" that says nothing happened between Bill Clinton and "Jane Doe". Pretty much nothing.

That Jane Doe was Juanita Broaddrick - swearing under oath Bill Clinton did not assault her.
 
True... but there are gradients of difference. Once, at least, knows what she is doing and the other has no clue. I am not wild about the Clinton choice; but Trump is not a choice.



I disagree, Trump isn't a criminal, trump isn't a perpetual war candidate. That used to mean something to the left.
 
But its irrelevent. Its fine for DT to bring it up I guess, but its not a part of the story about Donald Trump who is responsible for his own actions. The media isn't responsible for enforcing moral relativism in a story.


You say that someone is unfit because they said they grab *****......


it is fair game to point out you set up a "War room" to smear your husband's rape victims.
 
My point is giving blowjobs in the Oval Office and lying about it to a federal grand jury was acceptable behavior to a lot of Democrats back when Bill was president. What he did in his private life wasn't as important as what he did for jobs and the economy, they said. Did his behavior "desecrate the office of POTUS"? Apparently not, because they still revere him as a hero and a "great president." Now, in 2016, is Trump's behavior as a private citizen running for president more of a black mark on the office than Clinton's as a sitting president in the 1990s? I don't think so.

My comment on Trump was not about the 2005 tape. It was about the body of evidence of how he has conducted himself in the campaign, particularly in the debates. He has run the least presidential campaign in modern history. The litany of antics unbecoming a US President is too long and crass for this forum... but, if you need a list...

But, let me address Clinton v Trump. We are talking about electing a President. Trump actually brings almost nothing to the table, hence his character is more on trial than ever. As he has almost no resume and no prior political experience, these things have not been flushed out in prior campaigns. Clinton's, antics, to which you refer, happened AFTER election. Now, there were allegations of Clinton as a womanizer prior to his election and they were prosecuted. Those allegations kept me from voting for him.

The tape probably would not, in and of itself, be Trump's death knell... but, you have to admit, the man comes with incredible controversy. He has shown a great number of personality warts and almost no verifiable resume of a case that he can do the job. The Republicans did a very poor job of vetting this guy and now its being done. The process is working.

Vote for him if you wish; but he is going to lose. This video (and how he has responded since) is but another view into his life. People are waking up to a man use life is pretty ugly (and very unPresidential). The tape, however, is but the straw that broke the camel's back. You can obsess over this tape, but winning the argument still loses you the election.

(BTW, not to nit pick, but I don't think it was Clinton that GAVE blowjobs... and I do believe the impeachment and obsession over it was petty politics, for which many Republicans rightfully paid a political price).

I am not arguing the Clinton was a good man, but he did know what he was doing... Trump, however, appears to be neither a good man and has no record to show what he is doing.
 
Last edited:
Vote Gary Johnson. even though the man has smoked WAY too much weed and seems to have lost some of his mind. We have a HISTORIC moment to show the country the viability of a 3rd party.

I am not sure there is such a thing as "too much weed". :mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom