Mitt Romney for president, 2020.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why did you take me off of <ignore>?

Fair question. I left RF for a considerable period of time, and returned to find my ignore list purged of all names. Perhaps it was something that I did on a whim. I honestly do not remember.

I mentioned them in the same sentence because I see them as similar. Both are partisan and divisive.
Tom

The same could be said of David Duke and Martin Luther King. The moral equivalence suggested by your statement is, in my opinion, dangerously ignorant and disgusting.

 

[columbus]

Fair question. I left RF for a considerable period of time, and returned to find my ignore list purged of all names. Perhaps it was something that I did on a whim. I honestly do not remember.

The same could be said of David Duke and Martin Luther King. The moral equivalence suggested by your statement is, in my opinion, dangerously ignorant and disgusting.

Yawn <ignore> /yawn

 

[Shad]

Who in their right mind would vote for Trump or Warren?

Consider a vote for Trump is merely a giant middle finger to the established parties. Warren being a corporate Dem is nothing like that. It is probably a giant middle finger to Sanders as she takes his ideas while using the facade of progressiveism

The rest of the centrist candidates are either elderly people like Biden and Sanders, or noobs like Gabbards.

Sanders is no centrist. Both Sander and Gabbard are far better candidates than mainstream Dems

I want to see a candidate for president in 2020 who isn't painfully unprepared and demonstrably incompetent.

That hasn't happened for since the 90s

So, I'm willing to put aside my "straight ticket Democrat" voting pattern if the traditional conservatives can get get a real conservative on the ballot. Not another TeaParty progressive like Trump.

GOP has no real conservatives. They are fakes they change their tune once in office except things about religion.

Do you think that the GOP can get Romney to run?

It would be against their interest to replace Trump with Romney.

He said he wouldn't, but you know what Capitalists are like. It's always a question of price. I think that Romney, a true Republican, would run if the RNC convinced him that he would get support from other true Republicans.

Wait.... True GOP? What?

I'd vote for him, if the other option was Gabbards or Biden. And I'm not even a partisan.

I wouldn't.

What do we have to do to get a competent centrist leader into the game?
Tom

Get rid of the voters or require IQ tests in order to vote.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yawn <ignore> /yawn

Nice try, but ...

The proper format would be:

<tag>

stuff​

</tag>​

or, in this case:

<yawn>

ignore​

</yawn>​

Don't worry. It takes a while to get the hang of it.

 

[dianaiad]

You might want to get your story straight.
Tom

He lied to congress about the 'rape thing.' He said, under oath, that he didn't have an affair with/ have sex with/ Monica Lewinski. That's getting into trouble 'over the rape thing,' since doing it and lying about it are both problematic, to say the least.

However, the Dems didn't care that he misused his power in that way. It was just fine with them.

 

[dianaiad]

Who was William Jefferson Clinton convicted of murdering? No one.
Who was William Jefferson Clinton convicted of raping? No one.

there you go again, moving goal posts and equivocating. I didn't claim that he was convicted of anything. In fact, he wasn't convicted of anything. He was IMPEACHED.

and he was indeed guilty of the offense for which he was impeached. We have the evidence, and we have his own admission of guilt.

That he got away with it is utterly beside the point. Now, I don't know whether he was guilty of murder, but then I have been rather careful to use 'maybe,' and all the 'alleged' sort of words there.

Again, it would be a good idea if you practiced exegesis rather than eisegesis. Frankly, given the way conversations with you go, my responses should be a quote from you followed by "Fill in the blank with whatever you want to pretend I wrote, because you certainly aren't going to respond to what I actually DID write."

I don't actually have to provide any words; you are really good at making up my side of the conversation as well as yours.

It's really hypocritically funny and sad that you consider Clinton using his power as President having sex with an over 21 consenting female to be rape.

Dunno why you think it's 'hypocritical' or 'sad,'

Unless you think it's OK for clinton to have done that?

Yet you are completely OK with your 1/3 God using his power as God having sex with a young ignorant virgin.

Now where have I ever claimed that God had sex with Mary? You are inventing the conversation again....and wow, talk about a non-sequitur! I gather by this side track that you really have no clue how to respond logically here, do you?

Do you ever really think about the positions you take?

Well, yes. I am very careful about them. Do you ever think about the positions I take? Or are you so busy making them up that you don't actually CARE what positions I take?

 

[dianaiad]

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds:

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations - Wikipedia
Donald Trump, an American businessman and current president of the United States, has been accused of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment, including non-consensual kissing or groping, by at least 22 women since the 1980s.[5] The accusations have resulted in three much reported instances of litigation: his then-wife Ivana made a rape claim during their 1989 divorce litigation but later recanted that claim; businesswoman Jill Harth sued Trump in 1997 alleging breach of contract while also suing for nonviolent sexual harassment but withdrew the latter suit as part of a settlement for relating to the former suit; and, in 2017, former The Apprentice contestant Summer Zervos filed a defamation lawsuit after Trump called her a liar.[6]
​

How many women did Clinton pay off?

Quite a few. We have court cases and settlements on public record. Paula Jones, for instance, was given $850,000 in her lawsuit claiming rape. Oh, and he was disbarred.

How many women did Trump pay off?[/QUOTE]

We don't actually know, since all we have are accusations...and no court settlements.

I find it hypocritical and hilarious that you insist that Clinton is lily white innocent of everything because Liberals aren't guilty of anything unless convicted in a court of law, but insist that every single accusation or allegation against Trump MUST be true, because of course when one is a Conservative, accusations are all true.

Find a consistent stand to take, please.

 

[dianaiad]

You don't care about the legality? That's really sad. Perhaps you should move to a country where there are no laws. Oh, wait - all Countries have laws. I wonder why that is?



Rape as in the 22 women who accused Trump of sexual misconduct. Many of whom were paid off and threatened to remain silent.

And you know that, how? Because they SAID so? I mean, we have the actual court cases regarding Clinton having to pay people off. What do you have for deciding that Trump did?

Would you care to use a single standard for judgment here?

Apparently, in addition to not caring about legalities, you also don't care about your ethics and morals.





But, again, you are OK with 1/3 of your God impregnating a virgin who was probably well under age 21. Balance of power? Seriously?

Intern : President
Ignorant Virgin : God

Balance of power? Seriously?

Ecco, stick to the topic.

 

[columbus]

Nice try, but ...

The proper format would be:

<tag>

stuff​

</tag>​

or, in this case:

<yawn>

ignore​

</yawn>​

Don't worry. It takes a while to get the hang of it.

I get it.
You don't.
Tom

 

[Riders]

Who in their right mind would vote for Trump or Warren?
The rest of the centrist candidates are either elderly people like Biden and Sanders, or noobs like Gabbards.

I want to see a candidate for president in 2020 who isn't painfully unprepared and demonstrably incompetent.

So, I'm willing to put aside my "straight ticket Democrat" voting pattern if the traditional conservatives can get get a real conservative on the ballot. Not another TeaParty progressive like Trump.

Do you think that the GOP can get Romney to run? He said he wouldn't, but you know what Capitalists are like. It's always a question of price. I think that Romney, a true Republican, would run if the RNC convinced him that he would get support from other true Republicans.

I'd vote for him, if the other option was Gabbards or Biden. And I'm not even a partisan.
What do we have to do to get a competent centrist leader into the game?
Tom

I would be tempted to vote for Romney.

 

[columbus]

He lied to congress about the 'rape thing.'

There was no "rape thing".
Unless you're one of those people who don't think that women can be competent adults.
It's rather common amongst feminists, I can't help but notice.

But let's go back to the current president.
Do you think he could answer questions from Nancy Pelosi, under oath, and never tell one single lie?

Practically his first claim as presidential candidate was "I will release my tax returns before the election". Then he went on to lie several more times, claiming he would release his returns under this or that circumstance. He never did.
Do you think Trump would hold up better under oath than Slick Willy? Do you think that cheating on your wife is more important than selling out the national interests to a hostile foreign government?
Tom

 

[columbus]

I find it hypocritical and hilarious that you insist that Clinton is lily white innocent of everything

Who ever said that?
Tom

 

[columbus]

I would be tempted to vote for Romney.

In my state, you must be registered with a party in order to vote in the primaries. I have never voted in a primary. Registration in a political party has always felt like selling my soul to the devil.

But in the next few months I might. I might register as a Republican.
So I can express my opinion. Trump is not a Republican, he's a TeaParty. And I'll vote "Anybody but Trump".
Tom

 

[metis]

I don't particularly care what the legality is here.

I very much do.

It is pretty universally acknowledged that in cases such as this, whether the rapist gets away with it or not, with that level of power difference, it's rape.

This is called "bearing false witness", and this not only violates Judeo-Christian teachings as found in the Decalogue but also American law that says "innocent until proven guilty".

In this case, though, it IS partisan. The Dems have been hollering 'impeachment' since 24 hours after the election results were announced.

Now you are using stereotyping because only some did until very recently.

I don't see any impeachable offense. I honestly don't.

Then you're not familiar with American laws and the simple fact that even some Republicans are now saying he could be impeached based on what he has said and done. Asking and demanding a foreign power to interfere with our electioneering process is illegal under federal law.

Since we simply do not agree even on the most basic secular and religious morality or immorality of such things, my part in this discussion is finished.

 

[metis]

Trump is not a Republican, he's a TeaParty.

Under Trump and the Pubs blind loyalty to him no matter what he says and does, I think we can drop "Republican Party" and now call it the "Party of Trump".

 

[dianaiad]

Who ever said that?
Tom

You did.

By dismissing the whole thing as Monica 'taking responsibility,' thus excusing what Clinton did.

What Monica did or thought is up to Monica. Nothing that she did or thought meant anything at all to what Clinton did or thought, and no matter what she did, or 'took responsibility for,' the fact is, will, she, nil she, saying 'no' would have caused her problems; the loss of her job, pressure, whatever.

There is no way around that.

AND she was a whole twenty one years old to his...three times her age and about as much more powerful than she as it is possible to get.

 

[dianaiad]

I very much do.

This is called "bearing false witness", and this not only violates Judeo-Christian teachings as found in the Decalogue but also American law that says "innocent until proven guilty".

You are calling me a liar. metis, that's more than a little insulting AND I have done nothing similar to you.

Now you are using stereotyping because only some did until very recently.

"Only some?" Did those 'some' suddenly become 'no true Democrats' because you don't want to acknowledge that 'impeach him' wasn't a rallying cry? I mean, I've seen that happen right here on RF.

Then you're not familiar with American laws and the simple fact that even some Republicans are now saying he could be impeached based on what he has said and done. Asking and demanding a foreign power to interfere with our electioneering process is illegal under federal law.

What happened to 'innocent until proven guilty?" Does that only apply to Democrats?

Since we simply do not agree even on the most basic secular and religious morality or immorality of such things, my part in this discussion is finished.

Have a nice weekend.

 

[metis]

You are calling me a liar. metis, that's more than a little insulting AND I have done nothing similar to you.

There's a huge difference between a "lie" and a "liar", and I never use the latter because it labels the person. Thus, you have managed to "lie" again by falsely accusing me of saying that which I never said and won't say. IOW, just another example of "bearing false witness".

I'm of the "hate the sin, not the sinner" camp, but it's you who keeps on resorting to partisan politics by imply that I'm partisan. IOW, when you post like this, it seems to very much be a matter of "projection".

What happened to 'innocent until proven guilty?" Does that only apply to Democrats?

I have already explained to you that for me it does.

Have a nice weekend.

Ditto.

 

[columbus]

You did.

By dismissing the whole thing as Monica 'taking responsibility,' thus excusing what Clinton did.

That's flat out false.
I have consistently referred to Slick Willy Clinton as a sleazy scumbag.

What I did say is that Lewinsky was an adult. She chose an adulterous affair. She was not raped, which is what you claimed. I'm not a feminist. I consider women quite capable of making their own choices. Monica did that.
Tom

 

[dianaiad]

There's a huge difference between a "lie" and a "liar", and I never use the latter because it labels the person. Thus, you have managed to "lie" again by falsely accusing me of saying that which I never said and won't say. IOW, just another example of "bearing false witness".

metis, it is a fact that one who tells a lie is a liar. Accusing someone of telling a lie is calling them a liar. By definition.

There is a difference between telling a lie, and telling an untruth. One can say something that isn't true without being a liar, certainly. If one believes that what one is saying is true, then one is not lying when one says it. Telling a lie means that one KNOWS that what one is saying is untrue, and deliberately does it anyway.

You were calling me a liar by saying that I was telling a lie. You accused me of 'bearing false witness.' Do you understand the difference between testifying to what one believes to be true (even if it isn't) and deliberately lying, or, as you mention, 'bearing false witness?"

Now you have put me on ignore...temporarily, anyway. So you won't see this, at least not today. However, perhaps you might a bit later. Or perhaps someone else will help you differentiate between accusing someone of 'bearing false witness' (in other words, lying and being a liar and deliberately telling an untruth) and someone who simply has come to different conclusions than you and is saying what she believes to be true. Your disagreement with that does NOT make that other person a liar. Mistaken, perhaps, but not a liar OR 'bearing false witness."

I'm of the "hate the sin, not the sinner" camp, but it's you who keeps on resorting to partisan politics by imply that I'm partisan. IOW, when you post like this, it seems to very much be a matter of "projection".

I have already explained to you that for me it does.

Ditto.

If you were really of the 'hate the sin, not the sinner," you would not have accused me of bearing false witness. That's personal. That IS accusing me of lying. You would have said something like "That is not true." You would have talked about the untruth, not about the teller of it.