Foul or offensive language?

[Grace]

The rationalization and justification that many provide for Trump's bad behavior is truly breathtaking.

I see no one here rationalizing or justifying Trumps bad language or stupid infantile comments about women. However to even insinuate that Hillary was somehow better than him, is breathtaking.

I am not defending Trump, but what always confused me was, why did those who defended Hillary care so much about these allegations against Trump when they didn't care about Clinton’s actual proven behavior in and out of the White House?

As for foul and offensive language. What about the foul culture liberals like the Clinton's promoted? A culture of sexual freedom with no boundaries. Where promoters of nudity, like Hugh Hefner were glorified. They glorify sex and other perversions in their movies, on TV and other media. Bill Clinton and his complicit, enabling wife were just a part of that culture. The excuse the left made was that Bill’s sexual assaults and rapes were his private life and it was none of the public’s business. And anyone who came forward was denigrated and trashed. These are the same people who mocked and made fun of Mike Pence for making sure that he takes steps not to be in circumstances where even the appearance of anything unseemly could be projected.

But who has been warning about the culture liberals and progressives have been creating? Who has been attempting to promote boundaries in morality and virtue? Largely it was Conservatives and Christians. And the liberals like the Clinton's touted them as looney, crazy, and that they deserved to be the object of hate and bigotry. Liberals spent a lot of time condemning people that believe in good morals, and making them out to be kooky and odd.

Along came Trump with his big mouth and a disgusting comment caught on tape. Then all of a sudden these same people became the picture of virtue and started acting like they care about morals and values. They then went after Trump, while not addressing the sexual predator monsters in their own camp, like Clinton, Weinstein and Franken. The hypocrisy was astounding.

[temporal1]

Grace:
These are the same people who mocked and made fun of Mike Pence for making sure that he takes steps not to be in circumstances where even the appearance of anything unseemly could be projected.

In recent months, i’ve been paying special attention to black conservatives who are dedicated to standing up to the devastation wrought in black communities via horrifying lib “leadership.” Violence is at the forefront, but violence goes hand in hand with pornography, prostitution, drug abuse, and all sins+crimes that follow right along. They focus on fatherlessness, they want to rebuild traditional families - while libs focus on heading toward some new-age lo-grade interpretation of matriarchies.

These men are impressive.
When one grasps the horrible treatment they receive - often from peers, it’s amazing anyone even tries.

It’s not just in black communities, often, family+peers hold “their own” from going forward - it’s described in scriptures!
It has happened in my own family. Those not wanting to learn or do better, deliberately criticize, try to sabotage, those who do.

There is a related thread:

Neto / “Pastor Corey Brooks on the stand against post-60's Liberalism“
http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php ... ks#p150183

[ohio jones]

Politics is about making binary choices.

Both choices are evil. Anabaptists should have nothing to do with it.

[temporal1]

Both choices are evil. Anabaptists should have nothing to do with it.

i appreciate these words from an Anabaptist who abides by them. other Christians, and others, abide by them, as well.

[RZehr]

Politics is about making binary choices.

How is it binary, when write in options exist?

[Ken]

Politics is about making binary choices.

How is it binary, when write in options exist?

Fine, you can write-in whoever you want. I'll give you that. But the nation at large is usually engaged in a binary choice between two candidates in most elections. Once in a rare while there are 3 legitimate candidates like in 1992 when it was Clinton, Bush, and Perot.

[steve-in-kville]

Sadly, the most a third party ever got during a presidential election was something like 3 - 4% of the vote.

[Ken]

Sadly, the most a third party ever got during a presidential election was something like 3 - 4% of the vote.

In 1992 the results were

Clinton: 43%
Bush: 37%
Perot: 19%

In 1968 the results were:

Nixon 43.4%
Humphrey: 42.7%
Wallace: 13.5%

The issue is that the electoral college is winner-take-all so unless you actually WIN a state you get zero electoral votes.

[temporal1]

Sadly, the most a third party ever got during a presidential election was something like 3 - 4% of the vote.

Worse, career (or legacy) politicians of both parties have hijacked the 2-parties, forming a 1-party system that serves their agenda, not representative of The People. The 2-party system is “in name only” because the reality of 1-party would be distasteful.
Too honest.

Some saw this coming years ago. i didn’t notice until obama was in office.
Time and again, there were noisy contests in Congress, but when they voted, decisions would go to Dems, by very few votes.
It doesn’t require the majority of Republicans! Only “enough” to throw results. Over+over, the same culprits.

Paul Ryan was typical. Big talk, then, failure to follow through.

Without term limits, abuse of the system is likely to develop.
Ideally, voting should be sufficient! Somehow, it’s not.

[steve-in-kville]

Sadly, the most a third party ever got during a presidential election was something like 3 - 4% of the vote.

In 1992 the results were

Clinton: 43%
Bush: 37%
Perot: 19%

In 1968 the results were:

Nixon 43.4%
Humphrey: 42.7%
Wallace: 13.5%

The issue is that the electoral college is winner-take-all so unless you actually WIN a state you get zero electoral votes.

Wow. That I wouldn't have known. My data is flawed. What parties did Perot and Wallace run under?