Clinton child sex ring

[jamil]

We've covered this territory before. I can find Trump's behavior 'reprehensible' without finding it disqualifying or feeling the need to add my voice to the chorus

I wasn't looking for a saint, I was looking for someone to turn this thing around - and when I got on the train, he was taking it to the people I knew would be a disaster (Jeb, Christie, Jindal, Kasich, Rubio, Santorum) and showing himself to be a fighter

If you rewind this thread a bit, all I did was take offense to the really long stretch of trying to tie Trump to Epstein on the subject of Epstein's proclivities based on the thinnest, most tenuous innuendo. I just get tired of hearing how awful Trump is as if the harpies had some better option. By definition, the Pauls and the Walkers and the Cruzs etc couldn't even win their own party's nomination; why would i believe they could have beaten Clinton

The reality on the ground is, he's all of ours president, and the rub seems to be that those of us who supported him are happy about it. I'm not aware of any requirement for the position beyond at least 35, natural born citizen and a resident of the US for at least 14 years. The Constitution is silent on moral character. I am just really tired of being taken to task for having correctly discerned who had the best chance of beating Clinton and having my personal morality questioned because of it.

I will continue to offer alternate opinions about Trump's possible motivations and rationale whenever he is attacked in ways I feel are unjust. Please note that with the exception of a thread about Trump's popularity improving I have only responded to the attacks of others. I find it ludicrous that the very folks whinging about ad hom make nothing but scurilous ad hom attacks on Trump, as if it really were all about his character and its shortcomings just because that's what they thirst for. The pedants doth protest too much, methinks

As I've been saying, there's nothing wrong with not prioritizing moral character above policy and the outcomes you want, especially when the other choices have major flaws too. So I don't think you should take the questioning of your morality. One thing though. I know we've been through this before. And you say you don't feel the need to add your voice to the chorus. But you kinda tend to deny it, or justify it, or minimize it. Why not just say, yeah, he's an *******, so what? He's getting **** done I want done. I think that's a perfectly sound position to have.

And I agree that there's no real evidence Trump had anything to do with Epstein's bull****. And there's no real evidence Clinton did either. Yet here we are watching sides trade "yeah, but Trump did this" with "oh yeah, Clinton did that". How about Epstein needs to be in jail. End of thread.

 

[Dead Duck]

As I've been saying, there's nothing wrong with not prioritizing moral character above policy and the outcomes you want, especially when the other choices have major flaws too. So I don't think you should take the questioning of your morality. One thing though. I know we've been through this before. And you say you don't feel the need to add your voice to the chorus. But you kinda tend to deny it, or justify it, or minimize it. Why not just say, yeah, he's an *******, so what? He's getting **** done I want done. I think that's a perfectly sound position to have.

And I agree that there's no real evidence Trump had anything to do with Epstein's bull****. And there's no real evidence Clinton did either. Yet here we are watching sides trade "yeah, but Trump did this" with "oh yeah, Clinton did that". How about Epstein needs to be in jail. End of thread.

Trumps not an *******. Maybe you're just jealous.

 

[jamil]

Trumps not an *******. Maybe you're just jealous.

You're right. I'm jealous. I want to be an ******* really, really bad. I mean. I'd give away your left nut just so's I could be that big an *******.

 

[IndyDave1776]

What excuse do evangelicals have?

As I said before, we could accept Trump's flaws or we could have the alternate which is more evil by orders of magnitude and offers us absolutely nothing of value.

 

[jamil]

What excuse do evangelicals have?

Well. Okay. So between Hillary and Trump, and they’re both immoral, who do you pick? Do you try to rationalize which is least immoral? Do you just not vote? A lot of people didn’t vote because of that. And that’s fine of they chose that. Intentionally not voting as a matter of principle is a kind of vote. It’s not a wasted vote like people claim. You can be so disgusted with either that you chose neither.

Or, as an evangelical you might rationalize it another way. One of the two will win, so which will bring about an outcome closest to your evangelical values. Either way you can be assured that you’re rationalizing your decision. You have an intuition about the choice, and what you chose will be based on the intuition, and your default reasoning will be to support your intuition.

I don’t think this is the answer you wanted. But it is the answer to your question. What excuse do evangelicals have? No better excuse than anyone else. Because whatever they chose to do, vote left, vote right, not vote, they’ve made up their excuses for what their intuition has told them to do. You just can’t pin a moral implication on that objectively. But you’ll do it intuitively, no doubt.

 

[KG1]

Well. Okay. So between Hillary and Trump, and they’re both immoral, who do you pick? Do you try to rationalize which is least immoral? Do you just not vote? A lot of people didn’t vote because of that. And that’s fine of they chose that. Intentionally not voting as a matter of principle is a kind of vote. It’s not a wasted vote like people claim. You can be so disgusted with either that you chose neither.

Or, as an evangelical you might rationalize it another way. One of the two will win, so which will bring about an outcome closest to your evangelical values. Either way you can be assured that you’re rationalizing your decision. You have an intuition about the choice, and what you chose will be based on the intuition, and your default reasoning will be to support your intuition.

I don’t think this is the answer you wanted. But it is the answer to your question. What excuse do evangelicals have? No better excuse than anyone else. Because whatever they chose to do, vote left, vote right, not vote, they’ve made up their excuses for what their intuition has told them to do. You just can’t pin a moral implication on that objectively. But you’ll do it intuitively, no doubt.

Evangelicals who vote for Trump vote for policy just like anyone else would. Then they pray.

 

[jamil]

Evangelicals who vote for Trump vote for policy just like anyone else would. Then they pray.

Well sure. You pray for wisdom. You make your choice. You pray for your choice. But what’s going on inside, you have an intuition. And you do all the things you think you’re supposed to do to satisfy yourself that you’re making the decision accordingly. All of which is a rationalization to support your intuition. Not all evangelicals made the same decision. Some chose not to vote. Some chose to vote for Clinton. Some chose to vote for Trump. Same pious process. Different outcomes.

Put it this way. Compare Kut with Bug. Kut uses his reasoning to favor a critical point of view for Trump. Bug uses his reasoning to favor a non-critical view of Trump. Neither are balanced. In other words, when Kut is presented a choice for believing a supposed fact that is favorable to Trump, his instinct is overly critical. His standard of acceptance is exceptionally high. When the supposed fact is condemning of trump, his instinctive standard of acceptance is exceptionally low. The opposite seems to be true of Bug.

Of course that observation isn’t gonna sit well with either. But I’m not saying I’m not subject to the same intuitive reasoning. Because my worldview is more moderate, so is my intuition about things. Often enough I’m not critical enough or am overly critical. Sometimes things are actually skewed far one way or the other. I do think the more we understand the inaccuracies in our own worldview, and the intuitions wrought from that, the more we can tweak our worldview to comport with reality, so that our intuition is more accurate.

I used to think intuition was a bug, not a feature, because it can be so inaccurate. But I now see it as a vital feature of humans that is one reason for our success as a species, and that that can be honed by improving the accuracy of our view of everything.

 

[Ziggidy]

Evangelicals who vote for Trump vote for policy just like anyone else would. Then they pray.

Some people pray before they vote in order to choose the better of the two; then continue to pray for their leader.

There was NO ONE in the bible that was perfect when they were doing God's work (except Jesus). When you study the bible, you see God working with torn individuals who have personal problems, family problems and such.....but God used them in great ways. God see the bigger picture. I am not saying Trump is godly. I am saying God has used worse men than Trump. Look at the lineage of Jesus.....

Funny how this thread has evolved.....Clinton sex ring, Epstein and now Trump. Good thing mother Theresa cannot linked to any of this......or could she?

 

[NKBJ]

The agencies running Epstein need to be exposed, documented. The blackmail movies need to be made public rather than retained for use. The full extent of all the activities (and not just the children being recruited on three continents and used for sex ops) needs to be aired.

You need to know.

 

[BugI02]

As I've been saying, there's nothing wrong with not prioritizing moral character above policy and the outcomes you want, especially when the other choices have major flaws too. So I don't think you should take the questioning of your morality. One thing though. I know we've been through this before. And you say you don't feel the need to add your voice to the chorus. But you kinda tend to deny it, or justify it, or minimize it. Why not just say, yeah, he's an *******, so what? He's getting **** done I want done. I think that's a perfectly sound position to have.

And I agree that there's no real evidence Trump had anything to do with Epstein's bull****. And there's no real evidence Clinton did either. Yet here we are watching sides trade "yeah, but Trump did this" with "oh yeah, Clinton did that". How about Epstein needs to be in jail. End of thread.

It takes two to argue, it takes both to have a truce. I might do what you want if I thought it would get them to STFU, but my experience when I answered the question of "What might Trump do that would be too far for you" has convinced me its more about proselytizing. Doesn't it bother you that in the same breath they're arguing we must believe Trump is up to something ****ty based on thin 27 year old evidence, but we can't mention that the same old evidence shows Bill Clinton had frequent flier miles on Lolita Airlines and Frequent Guest points at Child Rape Island - that that is somehow diversion from the subject at hand? Is it wrong to just want them to just treat the man fairly? If they can parrot the MSM and bend every tenuous piece of evidence to the task of painting Trump in a dark palette, must I be chastised for pressing the counter argument?

It just seems , based on what gets thrown at me, the INGO's squad might be closet progressives. I'm comfortable in my own skin and confident my savior knows my name, but they seem to need to constantly affirm their moral superiority to Trump and question the righteousness of those who don't. Self-appointed elites, maybe.I can only infer that the world they move in requires that type of Shahada of them. I wouldn't put up with it but everyone has their own cross. I just don't expect (or desire) INGO to have an noisy outpost of the MSM churning out bile - I can get all I want of that in the realz. My work was in solving real world problems in real time, and what was important about people was the skill set they brought to the task. On the one hand, someone like Trump on the team would likely make effective teamwork difficult if he couldn't restrain his more disruptive tendencies; on the other hand some idiosyncrasy would be tolerated if he could really deliver. The morality of the team members would never factor. I wouldn't have a close friend as immoral as Trump, but that has nothing to do with the parameters to judge him that I consider important. I choose the best man (yes, I meant 'man') for the job of what I have available

 

[NKBJ]

If our president is shown on a VHS tape doing things with a child...
What will you do?

Demand to know who was running the op?
Want to know if someone has been twisting his arm?
Or examine his recent policy changes and what nation was favored?
Examine what he has tried to do but been redirected?
Will you get mad?
Or will you just fade away?
What?

 

[2A_Tom]

If our president is shown on a VHS tape doing things with a child...
What will you do?

Demand to know who was running the op?
Want to know if someone has been twisting his arm?
Or examine his recent policy changes and what nation was favored?
Examine what he has tried to do but been redirected?
Will you get mad?
Or will you just fade away?
What?

Well If they didn't already produce the evidence, I guess it does not exist. the thing is they don't need evidence. They spent 2 years on the phony dossier and Russia, Russia, Russia.

They have innuendo, they do not need evidence.

 

[churchmouse]

If our president is shown on a VHS tape doing things with a child...
What will you do?

Demand to know who was running the op?
Want to know if someone has been twisting his arm?
Or examine his recent policy changes and what nation was favored?
Examine what he has tried to do but been redirected?
Will you get mad?
Or will you just fade away?
What?

If I see this live on Memorex yes. But in all of this insanity, 2 years+ and millions of our dollars and they turned up..........

If this were out there they would have it and yes they would use it.

 

[churchmouse]

It takes two to argue, it takes both to have a truce. I might do what you want if I thought it would get them to STFU, but my experience when I answered the question of "What might Trump do that would be too far for you" has convinced me its more about proselytizing. Doesn't it bother you that in the same breath they're arguing we must believe Trump is up to something ****ty based on thin 27 year old evidence, but we can't mention that the same old evidence shows Bill Clinton had frequent flier miles on Lolita Airlines and Frequent Guest points at Child Rape Island - that that is somehow diversion from the subject at hand? Is it wrong to just want them to just treat the man fairly? If they can parrot the MSM and bend every tenuous piece of evidence to the task of painting Trump in a dark palette, must I be chastised for pressing the counter argument?

It just seems , based on what gets thrown at me, the INGO's squad might be closet progressives. I'm comfortable in my own skin and confident my savior knows my name, but they seem to need to constantly affirm their moral superiority to Trump and question the righteousness of those who don't. Self-appointed elites, maybe.I can only infer that the world they move in requires that type of Shahada of them. I wouldn't put up with it but everyone has their own cross. I just don't expect (or desire) INGO to have an noisy outpost of the MSM churning out bile - I can get all I want of that in the realz. My work was in solving real world problems in real time, and what was important about people was the skill set they brought to the task. On the one hand, someone like Trump on the team would likely make effective teamwork difficult if he couldn't restrain his more disruptive tendencies; on the other hand some idiosyncrasy would be tolerated if he could really deliver. The morality of the team members would never factor. I wouldn't have a close friend as immoral as Trump, but that has nothing to do with the parameters to judge him that I consider important. I choose the best man (yes, I meant 'man') for the job of what I have available

Uh.....who you talking about spanky.....

What I see is a bunch of people that love to argue. Many generate the argument just to.....well.....argue. It is hard to nail them down even when they are actually being honest. Then you see that the reality for them is a bit skewed. Dont dwell on it man.

 

[NKBJ]

CM,
Who do you think "they" is?
And what constitutes using it?

But, that wasn't the gist of my post.
If it happened, would you shrink away because your champion was slain?
Or would you arm up and go get the people that were manipulating your officials and your country and you?

 

[NKBJ]

And yeah, I think we're being played, big time.

 

[2A_Tom]

If you **** in your hand...

If the dog hadn't stopped to **** it would have caught the fox.

If you can keep your head when all others are losing theirs...

Try dealing in facts rather than speculation.

 

[Kutnupe14]

If our president is shown on a VHS tape doing things with a child...
What will you do?

Demand to know who was running the op?
Want to know if someone has been twisting his arm?
Or examine his recent policy changes and what nation was favored?
Examine what he has tried to do but been redirected?
Will you get mad?
Or will you just fade away?
What?

They will ask how many body doubles the president has, and if the one in the film has been fired yet.

 

[churchmouse]

CM,
Who do you think "they" is?
And what constitutes using it?

But, that wasn't the gist of my post.
If it happened, would you shrink away because your champion was slain?
Or would you arm up and go get the people that were manipulating your officials and your country and you?

I never slink away.
Trump is not my champion but he has proven to be the lesser of the 2 evils presented us on election.
He has for the most part stood up to his promises and it is now obvious to many who "THOSE" people are and who is manipulating us.
I would love to see this play out in the open for all to see but it will be manipulated/twisted/made into sound bites and drop terms just as it always does.

 

[churchmouse]

And yeah, I think we're being played, big time.

Always.