Trump

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Trump

What!? You cannot be serious. You would convict someone for an offhand boasting comment lacking any specifics?

If you go through airport security at any U.S. airport and jokingly say to someone "I sure hope there isn't a bomb on board this plane" you will not even get to finish that sentence. The second you utter the word "bomb", you will be jumped by masses of TSA agents. You will be dragged into a room and interrogated for hours. Your rights will be temporarily waived until you can somehow "prove" you were only joking.

In a perfect society, no one would be joking nor boasting about sexual assault. And perhaps we need to treat such joking the way airport security treats anyone who utters the word "bomb".

Billy Bush didn't get a pass on this. He got suspended from Today and later resigned after private negotiations. He'll survive, but his career took a big hit. Why him and not Trump?

And let's realize something else: when Trump finally made a statement about this video, he didn't actually deny that he'd ever done what he boasted of doing. He simply expressed regret and said "Anyone who knows me knows that these words don't reflect who I am." Notice the use of the PRESENT TENSE. He could have said the words don't reflect "who I was", but no, he used the present tense. Which tells me he was, at the time of that video, a sexual predator.

Because the legal system needs, uh, proof. I find it hard to believe you are the same guy that defended Reich's earlier comments because hey all theories are possible, but now you are absolutely certain that you know the one truth. And would convict someone on that basis? Are you trolling me here? :-D

No, I'm not saying "convict" Trump as in giving him jail time. But definitely disqualify him from running for President, as Billy Bush was suspended from Today. Where were you when that happened, why weren't you all over that?

And I am being very consistent with the Reich situation. Reich alleged that there may have been far-right involvement in those protests and he gave some evidence. So, it's possible. Trump on the other hand didn't give any "evidence" that he never sexually assaulted women, he didn't even go down that road.

So basically in your opinion he is a scumbag. Based on this "evidence" (very loosely speaking), it seems a reasonable opinion. But again, where is the proof of a crime?

At the very least, with all the wealth Trump has now, he should be making payment to all those who were stiffed by his bankruptcies. He should have maintained records of all amounts owing, and as soon as he had the money to pay them, he should have paid them. Instead, he is sitting there with billions of dollars and saying "Yes, I took advantage of the system" and not paying any money to anyone. Since there is no law that he must pay them, no crime in the eyes of the law. Nor is there any crime against bankruptcy, even deliberate bankruptcy. But in the eyes of any moral person, there is a crime.

I should imagine that if Trump is as evil as you suggest that:
1) You really should fear for your personal safety.
2) You should do more than protest by legal means.

I believe all American residents should be now fearing for their personal safety. But the proper response is not to protest Trump by emulating Trump, or as the saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right.

[Ben Daswani]

Re: Trump

I am not sure how Hillary Clinton got dragged into this but since you mentioned her ...

She didn't get "dragged into" anything. You brought her up.

So let me see if I get this straight. ... Trump is a sexual predator because a bunch of people claim he is, though as far as I know he hasn't been convicted in a court of law. As an aside, I guess that Bill and Hillary Clinton are also guilty because a bunch of people claim he is a sexual predator and she helped cover up the crimes.

You compare Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump, claiming that if Trump's guilty then the Clintons are "also guilty." You write as if the body of evidence against one is equivalent to the other! False equivalences like this, which wholly understate the fucked-up-ness of Donald Trump and of anyone vile enough to support him, are one of the reasons this lunatic got into power.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Trump

She didn't get "dragged into" anything. You brought her up.



You compare Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump, claiming that if Trump's guilty then the Clintons are "also guilty." You write as if the body of evidence against one is equivalent to the other! False equivalences like this, which wholly understate the fucked-up-ness of Donald Trump and of anyone vile enough to support him, are one of the reasons this lunatic got into power.

I don't compare the people, I compare situations. I don't think the Clintons are guilty of what they are accused of, either. Without a trial and a conviction, there's no guilt. As I explained in my reply to Paul Bonham.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Trump

If you go through airport security at any U.S. airport and jokingly say to someone "I sure hope there isn't a bomb on board this plane" you will not even get to finish that sentence. The second you utter the word "bomb", you will be jumped by masses of TSA agents. You will be dragged into a room and interrogated for hours. Your rights will be temporarily waived until you can somehow "prove" you were only joking.

In a perfect society, no one would be joking nor boasting about sexual assault. And perhaps we need to treat such joking the way airport security treats anyone who utters the word "bomb".

You cannot seriously be comparing a casual conversation on a bus between acquaintances with a conversation with an official while boarding a plane. Using your logic I can't take a dump in my bathroom because I can't take a dump in the lobby of the hotel across the street. Context matters.

Billy Bush didn't get a pass on this. He got suspended from Today and later resigned after private negotiations. He'll survive, but his career took a big hit. Why him and not Trump?

I guess because Trump's not answerable to anyone in his business life? An advantage of being the boss.

And let's realize something else: when Trump finally made a statement about this video, he didn't actually deny that he'd ever done what he boasted of doing. He simply expressed regret and said "Anyone who knows me knows that these words don't reflect who I am." Notice the use of the PRESENT TENSE. He could have said the words don't reflect "who I was", but no, he used the present tense. Which tells me he was, at the time of that video, a sexual predator.

Wow, a one word difference and super-sleuth Paul Bonham is on the case. I guess this is the equivalent of the smoking gun in the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky matter. Depends on what the word "am" is.

No, I'm not saying "convict" Trump as in giving him jail time. But definitely disqualify him from running for President, as Billy Bush was suspended from Today. Where were you when that happened, why weren't you all over that?

All over what? Why would it disqualify him? He hasn't been convicted of anything. Who is supposed to disqualify him? Who has that right/privilege?

And I am being very consistent with the Reich situation. Reich alleged that there may have been far-right involvement in those protests and he gave some evidence. So, it's possible. Trump on the other hand didn't give any "evidence" that he never sexually assaulted women, he didn't even go down that road.

1) No, Reich gave an account of second-hand rumours.

2) How is anyone supposed to prove that something didn't happen, that it never happened? If I say "I know Paul Bonham killed someone, somewhere, sometime" how are you supposed to disprove that?

At the very least, with all the wealth Trump has now, he should be making payment to all those who were stiffed by his bankruptcies. He should have maintained records of all amounts owing, and as soon as he had the money to pay them, he should have paid them. Instead, he is sitting there with billions of dollars and saying "Yes, I took advantage of the system" and not paying any money to anyone. Since there is no law that he must pay them, no crime in the eyes of the law. Nor is there any crime against bankruptcy, even deliberate bankruptcy. But in the eyes of any moral person, there is a crime.

Right. No crime. He's a scumbag. I get it. I'm pretty sure we already agreed on this.

I believe all American residents should be now fearing for their personal safety. But the proper response is not to protest Trump by emulating Trump, or as the saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right.

But if Trump is a madman with no conscience and unlimited power who will kill us all then why take the chance?

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Trump

It would appear that God is against Communism, the logical extension of Socialism, i.e. both are leftist. One could argue that the Soviet Union's chief "error" was to be officially aethest, but the Virgin spoke of "errors" in plural according to the Sister's testimony (some argue that it was faked, in other links I've seen).

My earlier post of course meant that the left is in general eternally misguided, in spite of trappy Peter's sophistry. Anyone can more or less accidently do the right thing, such as any particular social reform, but overall the left really sucks and comes from a rotten source (i.e. its Marxist roots). On his deathbed Marx feared he was doomed to hell, but for myself, I think people have done far worse things to and in this world, and may have been saved.

You make a hideous mistake in equating the many accomplishments of the left with "accidentally do the right thing". Ridiculous. Nothing accidental about it.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Trump

You cannot seriously be comparing a casual conversation on a bus between acquaintances with a conversation with an official while boarding a plane. Using your logic I can't take a dump in my bathroom because I can't take a dump in the lobby of the hotel across the street. Context matters.

Ha ha, context matters! Guess what? We are talking here about a man running for POTUS! That's the context, and in that context, the man running for POTUS is caught in a recording bragging about having committed sexual assault. I am comparing that to a man about to board a plane mentioning the word "bomb". In both cases, the person in question needs to be disqualified from running for POTUS / boarding the plane ..... needs to be taken to a room and interrogated, needs to PROVE his innocence. And for Trump, none of that was done. Context matters! We can't have a leader of the free world who places no value on women, or for that matter on anyone outside his business associates / family / friends. S/he needs to value EVERYONE. S/he needs to have basic morals. There needs to be a litmus test for morals, and bragging about committing sexual assault SHOULD FAIL THE LITMUS TEST AUTOMATICALLY unless you can prove it was done as a total lark, such as being done on a dare or for a TV show or some similar thing.

I guess because Trump's not answerable to anyone in his business life? An advantage of being the boss.

So in your view, the double standard of what happened to Billy Bush compared to what happened to Donald Trump because of this video is acceptable. This reinforces what I already believed about your basic moral character.

All over what? Why would it disqualify him? He hasn't been convicted of anything. Who is supposed to disqualify him? Who has that right/privilege?

"Why would it disqualify him?" See the above.

"He hasn't been convicted of anything" Neither was Billy Bush, yet he could not remain on the Today show. Imagine that, a TV show being more important than running the United States of America. And Bush's crime was far less serious, he just didn't REPORT Trump bragging about committing sexual assault.

When you talk about conviction, you are making an assertion / assumption that legal conviction is the bottom line in determining moral standing of an individual. That is where you and I disagree. Because I also include things like bragging about committing sexual assault, which cannot get a conviction because no names / details are mentioned (pointed out in my thought experiment). Nevertheless, unless the person doing the bragging can definitively prove that it was all a lark as mentioned above, that person to me is immoral or potentially immoral, and thus unworthy of trust or responsibility.

I don't know if you have kids, Tom, but to get right to the heart of this matter....

Would you trust Trump to babysit your 13-year-old daughter????

BOOM!

1) No, Reich gave an account of second-hand rumours.

That is your opinion.

2) How is anyone supposed to prove that something didn't happen, that it never happened? If I say "I know Paul Bonham killed someone, somewhere, sometime" how are you supposed to disprove that?

Easy enough: innocent until proven guilty.

But that isn't the question here. This isn't Billy Bush saying on video that Trump committed sexual assault, this is DONALD TRUMP saying on video that Trump committed sexual assault. Again, the point of my thought experiment. YOU walk into the police station and say YOU murdered someone. Without a body nor even a victim name, no murder charges can be made no matter how much you insist. But no one in that police station who overhears you and is of sound mind and body is EVER going to let you babysit their kids. You see, Tom? You aren't convicted, you aren't even charged. But you aren't trusted either! And that's how it should be, at least for people who care about their kids or who in the larger context care about the survival and morality of the United States of America. You shouldn't babysit anyone's kids, and you shouldn't be allowed to be POTUS.

But Trump supporters have decided that their kids / the survival and morality of the United States of America is NOT their priority. Stopping Planned Parenthood, and / or repealing Obamacare, and / or tearing up the Iran nuclear deal, and / or renegotiating trade deals with China, and/ or gutting the EPA and stopping climate change scientists ..... this takes precedence for them! It is a shortsighted view.

This was my point to Kevin. He said he likes what Trump is doing. I made the point that it is more important what Trump is made of (immorality).

But if Trump is a madman with no conscience and unlimited power who will kill us all then why take the chance?

Well, first of all his power IS limited -- he's not Darth Vader in terms of power... yet.

But your question is not taken lightheartedly.... because it is quite likely SOMEONE with that attitude could take matters into their own hands..... and that would take the overall situation down several notches.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Trump

Ha ha, context matters! Guess what? We are talking here about a man running for POTUS! That's the context, and in that context, the man running for POTUS is caught in a recording bragging about having committed sexual assault. I am comparing that to a man about to board a plane mentioning the word "bomb". In both cases, the person in question needs to be disqualified from running for POTUS / boarding the plane ..... needs to be taken to a room and interrogated, needs to PROVE his innocence. And for Trump, none of that was done. Context matters! We can't have a leader of the free world who places no value on women, or for that matter on anyone outside his business associates / family / friends. S/he needs to value EVERYONE. S/he needs to have basic morals. There needs to be a litmus test for morals, and bragging about committing sexual assault SHOULD FAIL THE LITMUS TEST AUTOMATICALLY unless you can prove it was done as a total lark, such as being done on a dare or for a TV show or some similar thing.

I notice you didn't say who has that power to disqualify him. Or exactly how someone can prove their innocence with respect to a crime ... against someone ... sometime ... somehow. I am pretty sure in such cases it is the job of the voters to disqualify him, if you want to call it that. But since tens of millions thought that it didn't matter, they didn't.

So in your view, the double standard of what happened to Billy Bush compared to what happened to Donald Trump because of this video is acceptable. This reinforces what I already believed about your basic moral character.

A bunch of people in a company made a decision. Presumably these people were in a position to legally make that decision. Would I have made the same decision in their place from here? Based on this "evidence", no. However, I imagine they have reasons related to shareholders, possibly negatively affected ratings, etc.

"Why would it disqualify him?" See the above.

"He hasn't been convicted of anything" Neither was Billy Bush, yet he could not remain on the Today show. Imagine that, a TV show being more important than running the United States of America. And Bush's crime was far less serious, he just didn't REPORT Trump bragging about committing sexual assault.

See my answer above. Guess what: life isn't fair. Trump can be a jerk and it doesn't seem to matter while Billy Bush can be a jerk and he gets fired.

When you talk about conviction, you are making an assertion / assumption that legal conviction is the bottom line in determining moral standing of an individual. That is where you and I disagree. Because I also include things like bragging about committing sexual assault, which cannot get a conviction because no names / details are mentioned (pointed out in my thought experiment). Nevertheless, unless the person doing the bragging can definitively prove that it was all a lark as mentioned above, that person to me is immoral or potentially immoral, and thus unworthy of trust or responsibility.

Legal conviction is some sort of standard. Not the completely arbitrary standard of a Paul Bonham or a Tom O'Donnell. One person's morally right decision is another one's abomination. For example, I think assassinating foreign leaders is wrong. I think collecting data through things like PRISM by government is wrong. Some people disagree with me. That's why we have laws, trials and such.

I don't know if you have kids, Tom, but to get right to the heart of this matter....

Would you trust Trump to babysit your 13-year-old daughter????

BOOM!

Seriously? "BOOM!" What are you, six? I wouldn't leave him to babysit my child if I had one, no. I wouldn't leave Bill Clinton or Michael Jackson (if he were still alive) to do it either. That doesn't mean that either of them are guilty of anything in particular, right?

That is your opinion.

Easy enough: innocent until proven guilty.

But that isn't the question here. This isn't Billy Bush saying on video that Trump committed sexual assault, this is DONALD TRUMP saying on video that Trump committed sexual assault. Again, the point of my thought experiment. YOU walk into the police station and say YOU murdered someone. Without a body nor even a victim name, no murder charges can be made no matter how much you insist. But no one in that police station who overhears you and is of sound mind and body is EVER going to let you babysit their kids. You see, Tom? You aren't convicted, you aren't even charged. But you aren't trusted either! And that's how it should be, at least for people who care about their kids or who in the larger context care about the survival and morality of the United States of America. You shouldn't babysit anyone's kids, and you shouldn't be allowed to be POTUS.

For fear of repeating myself: who makes the determination? You?

But Trump supporters have decided that their kids / the survival and morality of the United States of America is NOT their priority. Stopping Planned Parenthood, and / or repealing Obamacare, and / or tearing up the Iran nuclear deal, and / or renegotiating trade deals with China, and/ or gutting the EPA and stopping climate change scientists ..... this takes precedence for them! It is a shortsighted view.

This was my point to Kevin. He said he likes what Trump is doing. I made the point that it is more important what Trump is made of (immorality).

So Planned Parenthood is a litmus test? Here's where what's moral becomes debatable. Some people think it is moral for people to get to totally control their reproductive rights. Some others believe that killing fetuses is murder. If someone has an abortion are they morally unfit to lead? What if they prevent someone else from having one? You speak of morality as if it is something all people can agree on. Entire countries seem unable to agree on some things.

Well, first of all his power IS limited -- he's not Darth Vader in terms of power... yet.

But your question is not taken lightheartedly.... because it is quite likely SOMEONE with that attitude could take matters into their own hands..... and that would take the overall situation down several notches.

I am not asking it in jest. I am totally serious. Or more precisely, I am taking your claim that Trump is a man with no conscience totally seriously. Are you?

[Ben Daswani]

Re: Trump

I don't compare the people, I compare situations.

What sort of pedantic sophistry is this? You compared the people's situations. You compared an element of each of the people.

Without a trial and a conviction, there's no guilt.

Without a trial and a conviction, there's no criminal guilt, yes. But criminal guilt was never what we were talking about. We were talking about a member of the laity's conclusion that Donald Trump has committed sexual assault versus a member of the laity's conclusion that Hillary Clinton has covered up sexual assault. You presented the two as being equivalent. I've now explained, in more detail than I expected to have to, why they're not. I have nothing more to say on this particular topic.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Trump

What sort of pedantic sophistry is this? You compared the people's situations. You compared an element of each of the people.



Without a trial and a conviction, there's no criminal guilt, yes. But criminal guilt was never what we were talking about. We were talking about a member of the laity's conclusion that Donald Trump has committed sexual assault versus a member of the laity's conclusion that Hillary Clinton has covered up sexual assault. You presented the two as being equivalent. I've now explained, in more detail than I expected to have to, why they're not. I have nothing more to say on this particular topic.

You are right. Comparing him to Charles Manson is much more reasonable. I'm done too.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Trump

My point (since Christianity was mentioned) was that it would appear that God is against Communism, the logical extension of Socialism (according to Marx, I believe) , i.e. both are leftist in nature. One could argue that the Soviet Union's chief "error" was to be officially atheist, but the Virgin spoke of "errors" in plural according to the Sister's testimony (some argue that that was faked, in another link I once looked at).

My earlier post of course meant that the left is in general, and in their principles, eternally misguided and twisted, in spite of any trappy sophistry used against me. Anyone can more or less accidently do (and be there to do) the right thing, such as enact any version of a particular social reform that's overdue, but overall the left really sucks and comes from a rotten source (i.e. its Marxist roots). That's not to mention social engineering by the left (e.g. Wynne's radical sex ed ideas that were forced into Ontario schools). I've heard it said that on his deathbed Marx feared he was doomed to hell, but for myself, I think people have done far worse things to and in this world, and may have been saved.

Perhaps God is against systems such as Stalinism, totalitarianism, and other authoritarian systems that have a heavy propensity for abusing people. But perhaps God is not against communism in a pure form. If he is, or was, then explain why the early church (i.e. post-crucifixion) was a communistic society (see Acts 2: 41-47 and 4: 32-37).

You accuse me of trappy sophistry. Give me an example. The second paragraph of your above post, Kevin, is absolute nonsense.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Trump

Perhaps God is against systems such as Stalinism, totalitarianism, and other authoritarian systems that have a heavy propensity for abusing people. But perhaps God is not against communism in a pure form. If he is, or was, then explain why the early church (i.e. post-crucifixion) was a communistic society (see Acts 2: 41-47 and 4: 32-37).

You accuse me of trappy sophistry. Give me an example. The second paragraph of your above post, Kevin, is absolute nonsense.

IMHO - God takes no position......S/he gave humans free will.....we're supposed to live altruistically.....figure out the political/economic system that takes care of brothers and sisters......not rocket science theology.

[Sam Sharpe]

Re: Trump

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Trump

My second paragraph that was quoted explains by implication the somewhat lengthy bit of trappy sophistry (including the Christianity reference, thrown like an unsound trap) that was used against my clearly generalized statement. I grant you it's hard to defend against a general statement like mine was without somehow claiming the alleged good of the left is somehow significant in comparison to the hugely bad aspects of it, but the onus is on the leftists in light of the overall ugly record of their movement IMHO . I can give links on Marx' quote concerning his conscience, and that the social leftist Wynne's Ontario sex ed curriculum is radical & social engineering (I didn't even get into Hollywood's immorality), but why bother to strain myself when only hard core leftist chesstalk posters are intensely questioning my posts.

As I explained to Brad, the only form of national government that God ever clearly endorsed Himself was a theocracy. Nowadays we are living with huge populations and territory to manage in our world's many nations, but democracies seem to me to be most blessed. Fwiw, Pope John Paul II (who said he was saved from death by the Virgin deflecting a bullet) at one point publicly rebuked a Marxist leaning clergyman right after getting off a plane in Central America.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Trump

I notice you didn't say who has that power to disqualify him. Or exactly how someone can prove their innocence with respect to a crime ... against someone ... sometime ... somehow. I am pretty sure in such cases it is the job of the voters to disqualify him, if you want to call it that. But since tens of millions thought that it didn't matter, they didn't.

Well, Trump LOST the popular vote to Hillary by 3 million votes, so by that measure we can say that the voters did disqualify him.

A bunch of people in a company made a decision. Presumably these people were in a position to legally make that decision. Would I have made the same decision in their place from here? Based on this "evidence", no. However, I imagine they have reasons related to shareholders, possibly negatively affected ratings, etc.

A bunch of people in a COUNTRY can make a decision also. No one imagined a scenario where someone running for POTUS could be exposed during the campaign for bragging on the record about committing sexual assault, and so there was in place no built-in remedy (Trump couldn't be "fired" or "suspended"). There was a moment of time where Rance Priebus and other promninent Republicans could have pulled Republican Party support from Trump and arguably in doing so forced him to resign and be replaced mid-campaign, but they chose not to do that. Perhaps they thought he had enough resources on his own to just continue.

And ask yourself, why would the Today show have negative ratings and shareholder issues by keeping Billy Bush on the show? It is because the audience of the show, American residents, know immorality when they see it and would not be able to stomach watching a show hosted by a person who committed an immoral act. No legal conviction was necessary! There is an "implied guilt" that takes effect.

If that be the case for a measly TV show, it should be so much more the case for determining who runs the nation.

Guess what: life isn't fair. Trump can be a jerk and it doesn't seem to matter while Billy Bush can be a jerk and he gets fired.

Perhaps in future, rules will be put in place to handle changing candidates mid-campaign in such circumstances. Life may not be fair as you say, but that doesn't mean we do nothing. My argument is that when you someone evil such as Trump is able to get elected POTUS, you don't accept it. You start making moves to get that person removed from office by all legal means. You continue to make the case that he is evil, just as Trump did during the campaign with his "Crooked Hillary" nonsense.

Life will not be fair as long as there are people who will accept an evil President if it means their pet policy or policies get enacted. It is disturbing that over 40% of voting Americans fit this description. And many of these Americans are "God-fearing Christians" who will sing the lyrics to God Bless America and believe that the God they fear -- a God of righteousness and justice and morals -- will bless their country.... run by an evil President that they put in power, who has committed sexual assault and gotten away with it because there are no specific names and instances that can be prosecuted, who has also shafted hard-working Americans out of money he was legally supposed to pay them but decided he didn't want to even now when he could easily give them retribution.

If there is such a God looking over us, that God is definitely NOT going to bless America. Even if there isn't such a God, we still should be upholding agreed-upon moral standards, which would include that sexual assault, either by legal conviction OR BY implied guilt as mentioned above, is immoral and is an automatic disqualifier for anyone in elected office.

Legal conviction is some sort of standard. Not the completely arbitrary standard of a Paul Bonham or a Tom O'Donnell. One person's morally right decision is another one's abomination. For example, I think assassinating foreign leaders is wrong. I think collecting data through things like PRISM by government is wrong. Some people disagree with me. That's why we have laws, trials and such.

You're doing the trolling now, trying to cloud the issue with a debate on morals. The acts of Trump we are discussing here aren't "on the moral fence". They are immoral and he is evil for having committed them, and that is not arguable.

Seriously? "BOOM!" What are you, six? I wouldn't leave him to babysit my child if I had one, no. I wouldn't leave Bill Clinton or Michael Jackson (if he were still alive) to do it either. That doesn't mean that either of them are guilty of anything in particular, right?

The BOOM! is because this single point, that you have now admitted to, totally destroys your position. You are saying Trump hasn't been legally convicted and so he should be fine to continue as POTUS. At the same time, you wouldn't allow him to babysit your child! BOOM! Position destroyed!

In using Trump's "implied guilt" to not allow him to babysit your child, you are guilty of the very thing you are arguing against. You can continue to hold your position if you choose, but I have exposed you as a total hypoctrite.

So Planned Parenthood is a litmus test? Here's where what's moral becomes debatable. Some people think it is moral for people to get to totally control their reproductive rights. Some others believe that killing fetuses is murder. If someone has an abortion are they morally unfit to lead? What if they prevent someone else from having one? You speak of morality as if it is something all people can agree on. Entire countries seem unable to agree on some things.

Again, none of this is part of this discussion. Sexual assault and deliberately not paying your bills are both accepted by nearly everyone as immoral conduct.

I didn't say anything about Planned Parenthood being a litmus test.... wow, really bad trolling. Stop making such a fool of yourself.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Trump

The BOOM! is because this single point, that you have now admitted to, totally destroys your position. You are saying Trump hasn't been legally convicted and so he should be fine to continue as POTUS. At the same time, you wouldn't allow him to babysit your child! BOOM! Position destroyed!

I wouldn't let you around my children if I had any. ;-)