No, I have to say, you are not a just the facts type. You are highly selective, and more often than not turn a blind eye to Trump's behavior, at least judging from your posts. My position is similar to that of the majority in this country, that Trump has no business playing at this level, he is a danger, and the sooner he goes, the better.
It is a matter of priorities, and playing this game of false comparisons is neither mature or responsible, imho. This isn't some communist self-criticism session, or church confessional, with Hillary playing center stage. This is for all the marbles, and getting Orange Stooge One away from any elements of power is our first order of business. Then we can all sit back, drink our lattes and discuss how we think President Clinton should govern the country. Fair enough? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote : Okay, that is an interesting take, and sort of clarifies the situation. Whatever misdeeds by Hillary must be viewed the lens of the misdeeds by her opponent, and discounted accordingly. Of course "you" determine of severity of each offense and where they fit on the sliding scale. I'm more of "just the fact" please, type person. What you are saying of course is that Trump is such a poor candidate that any misdeeds by Hillary are basically immaterial. This is fine, just don't try to tell me that she did not do something that she did. Or, for that matter, don't try to tell me that sex between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky was simply sex between two consenting adults with no other dynamics at play. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <olliesedwuz@...> wrote : 'challenging Hillary' is not relevant at all, until the many road flares that Trump has raised are dealt with. Once she gets elected, that will be the time for additional scrutiny. Until then, it is a false equivalency, like worrying about a mosquito bite, when a rabid dog is on the loose. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote : Here's what I would add. Politics is a dirty business. Sometimes you, (a candidate) has to do things in the name of political expediency that they regret. Hillary Clinton needed her husband to further her political ambitions. There is, in my opinion, nothing wrong with that. Yes, it is a stain or a blemish on her that she attempted to discredit Bill's accusers. But it was done and you have to acknowledge, or dance around it as best you can and move on, I for one am ready to move on, except when someone claims that it did not happen, or to sugar coat it. Unless something drastic happens she will win the election and has an opportunity to do some good. That is what I am focussed on. P.S. For some reason, you and others can't seem to realize that challenging Hillary is not the same as supporting Trump. It just means that one is not afraid to look at issues in an unbiased manner. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <olliesedwuz@...> wrote : I am more than willing to address the candidates' issues, in a balanced way. On the one hand is an oaf who, for starters, refuses to release his tax returns. Refuses to, after every major candidate in the last 40 years has done it. Many just shrug and say, 'oh that's Trump, just being Trump'. Same with him suggesting Hillary could be shot, same with his dangerous flip flops on major policy issues, and utter lack of interest or experience in public service, 'oh he will surround himself with good people'. Same with his admissions of sexual assault, 'oh, its just locker room banter'. On the other hand, Clinton's entire *life* is somehow seen as a legal deposition, with every 'i' dotted and 't' crossed, held up to the strictest legal and moral scrutiny. What a bunch of bullshit, Steve. Not much more to add. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote : Ollie, why is it that so many here lack the integrity to address uncomfortable issues, such as Hillary pillorying of BIll Clinton's accusers. My question is clearly directed at this and her response of dealing with it when it got in the way of political expediency. I am not sure how you can work to discredit the claims of these women at the same time declaring yourself to be a champion of women's rights. Can you? Now to repeat what Bharitu said, we are not electing a saint, so I get what she did. Just acknowledge it, if you can, and then move on. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <olliesedwuz@...> wrote : Hillary Clinton is not a rapist - Donald is. Hillary Clinton does not go around grabbing men's crotches, feeling that she is entitled to - Donald the Rapist does. Hillary Clinton has not had public affairs while she was married - Donald the rapist has. I am not sure why we are talking about Hillary's husband - he isn't running. Let's stay focused and compare candidate to candidate. Frankly I am amazed that any man or woman could ever excuse or qualify Trump's words, once again. Rather than feel completely repelled and revolted by this Orange Abomination, I see too many deciding that the ugliness Trump exposes is A-OK, because 'gee I feel a lot of the same things inside...'. Talk about the banality of evil... ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote : Lame? So mention Monica Lewinsky but leave out the woman Bill Clinton actually raped, not to mention the accusations of groping by numerous others, and the veracity of these claims challenged by Hillary. And this is the candidate who claims to be a champion of women's rights? This is political expediency and nothing more. Have the intestinal fortitude to call it for what it is. Your comments, as is often the case are the ploys of a partisan, who claims to be purveyor of truth but in actuality is pretty much just a shrill. Hillary Clinton haunted by efforts to ‘destroy’ Bill Clinton accusers http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/14/hillary-clinton-haunted-by-efforts-to-destroy-bill/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/14/hillary-clinton-haunted-by-efforts-to-destroy-bill/ Hillary Clinton haunted by efforts to ‘destroy’ Bill Cli... http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/14/hillary-clinton-haunted-by-efforts-to-destroy-bill/ Running to be the first woman president, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has taken a stern stand on combating sexual harassment and assau... View on www.washingtontimes... http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/14/hillary-clinton-haunted-by-efforts-to-destroy-bill/ Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : "Locker room banter," of course, isn't the point. That's just an exceptionally lame--and supremely hypocritical--attempt to defend the indefensible. This, as I've already said, is about Trump boasting of his right as a celebrity to commit *criminal sexual assault* any time he wants and get away with it. Bill Clinton's affair with Monica was consensual. She didn't sue him for sexual harassment (let alone sexual assault) because she wouldn't have had a chance of winning. In most states in this country, kissing someone or grabbing their genitals for sexual gratification without their consent is a crime subject to jail time. And nobody's cutting Clinton any slack for his philandering. But Clinton's sins have nothing whatsoever to do with this. Trump's is a whole other order of misbehavior toward women. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : Since you brought up the subject of men's locker room banter, you and some Democrats cut Bill Clinton and lot of slack when he didn't get sued by Monica for sexual harassment in the work place. He should have been fired and put in jail for being a sexual predator and lying to the American people and Congress. Any normal person would acknowledge the crimes against women Bill has committed and be honest about what happened, but for some reason you just can't seem to be normal and honest. Politics as usual, I guess. Go figure. Your post has got to be one of the most hypocritical messages on this forum that I've ever read. Bill Clinton made the office of the U.S. Presidency the laughing stock of the entire planet! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : Now, boys, as you are very well aware, nobody is talking about saints or church ladies. We're talking about the difference between normal if imperfect human beings, and an aggressive sexual predator who brags that his celebrity gives him the right to commit criminal sexual assault whenever he feels like it. Most normal human beings would be embarrassed to cut such a person any slack, let alone attempt to defend him. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <noozguru@...> wrote : And we have had no saints as President. People loved JFK but he had secret affairs. The public can be sooooo lame! On 10/07/2016 06:45 PM, anon_alias wrote: There are no saints running for public office - probably never have been any. But if I were to guess what Bill said to Monica that day in the Oval Office, it would be: "Oh my gawd!" or "What are you doing tomorrow?" or "I think I just died and went to heaven!" Something like that. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <noozguru@...> mailto:noozguru@... wrote : Now refresh my memory, what saints are running for public office these days? Would you want your local church lady to run for public office? On 10/07/2016 05:50 PM, anon_alias wrote: Since you brought up the subject, what exactly did Bill Clinton say to Monica Lewinsky inside the Oval Office at the White House? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> mailto:authfriend@... wrote : Tape Reveals Donald Trump Bragging About Kissing and Groping Women Tape Reveals Donald Trump Bragging About Kissing an... A lewd discussion taped in 2005 on a soap opera set adds to evidence that Mr. Trump has a record of sexist behavior. View on www.nytimes.com Preview by Yahoo
