"The Moral Collapse of the Republican Party"

[whirlingmerc]

Unfortunately both candidates are significantly flawed. The FBI director ran down a large list of claims Hillary made about her mail servers and explained they were all false. She's just a bit too comfortable lying.

Trump is unwise and undiplomatic in many of his statements as well...

In my view Trump is the lesser of two evils but I would love more choices

 

[whirlingmerc]

When Hillary became secretary of state, Bill "booked two of his top three highest-paid speeches ever by traveling to Nigeria, pulling in a whopping $700,000 each."

And what about the poverty-stricken people of Nigeria? When Bill appeared at an event there in 2013 to collect an award, "he handed out checks to schoolteachers as a reward for their work. But while Clinton collected his fee, the teachers saw their checks bounce."

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/05/the_hillbilly_cash_pump.html#ixzz4E9RGGMhy
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/05/the_hillbilly_cash_pump.html

 

[whirlingmerc]

Additionally there is reason to believe Hillary was soft on terror due to pressure from donors
particularly in Africa

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2...llary-to-delay-boko-haram-terror-designation/

 

[Sunstone]

Regardless of whether Trump wins or loses (and he'll probably lose), the Republican Party is screwed.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Typical rubbish from a pseudo-scientist who'd rather sound clever than understand.

"Pseudo-scientist?" I'm pretty sure many anthropologists would disagree with the "pseudo" part, especially those that deal with paleontology, biology, forensics, medicine, archeology, and even cultural anthropologists for all the doors they have opened in addressing many social issues, both here and abroad.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Pseudo-scientist?" I'm pretty sure many anthropologists would disagree with the "pseudo" part, especially those that deal with paleontology, biology, forensics, medicine, archeology, and even cultural anthropologists for all the doors they have opened in addressing many social issues, both here and abroad.

You're missing the poetic reciprocity of my response.
Tis about the pretense of the post, rather than the claimed field of expertise..

 

[metis]

"Pseudo-scientist?" I'm pretty sure many anthropologists would disagree with the "pseudo" part, especially those that deal with paleontology, biology, forensics, medicine, archeology, and even cultural anthropologists for all the doors they have opened in addressing many social issues, both here and abroad.

Let's see, my guess is that the above is in response to something Revoltingest posted, right? At least it "sounds" like something he would post.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Tis about the pretense of the post, rather than the claimed field of expertise..

It's still insulting to call anthropology a "pseudo-science" because anthropologists often and regularly have to take all of their humanities courses in addition to a ton of science courses. Forensic anthropologists, for example, have to take courses in criminal justice, cultural anthropology, biology, osteology, and even some chemistry and physics. By the time they are (finally) done with school they can read bones and the decay of human flesh like an English literature major can read Shakespeare.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's still insulting to call anthropology a "pseudo-science"....

You're misreading me, by not reading literally enuf, hence the false quote above.
I referred to the "pseudo-scientist" who made the post, not the claimed field of expertise.
Now you're giving false info to the guy who has me on <ignore>, & will take your erroneous
inference instead of what I actually said.

I've never admitted it here before, but I took a circuitous path to becoming an engineer.
I've studied many things, including anthropology, before settling on a field.

Look again at post #60....

I typically refer to most of them as "pseudo-conservatives" because they don't want a strong federal government-- until they're in power.

To describe Libertarians as such, & to claim that we really want a strong fed gov is
unsupported, inaccurate, & mere partisan sniping. I made no comment whatsoever
upon the fields of either either cultural or physical anthropology.
If this is the quality of one's anthropological analysis, then "pseudo" is perhaps too mild
a term for one's specious claim of using the scientific method. "Scientist" indeed....piffle!

If you still dispute this, let's take it up by PM, because this is awkwardly third person,
& is against the rules. My post #67 was too subtle, I guess.

 

[tytlyf]

Additionally there is reason to believe Hillary was soft on terror due to pressure from donors
particularly in Africa

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2...llary-to-delay-boko-haram-terror-designation/

That's a conspiracy theory. Based on opinion (propaganda), not facts or evidence. Judicial watch is a RW media outlet, do not trust them.

 

[whirlingmerc]

tylyf Waving your hand and asserting conspiracy is not really a defense.
The record is fairly clear that Obama and Hillary are pretty narrow speaking on human right issues overseas often avoiding them in Asia

For example, in the case of North Africa it was unfortunate since perhaps there would have been less kidnappings of young women if Hillary wasn't soft of Boko Haram due to the donars

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/09/opinion/gingrich-hillary-clinton-boko-haram-terrorist/index.html

 

[tytlyf]

tylyf Waving your hand and asserting conspiracy is not really a defense.
The record is fairly clear that Obama and Hillary are pretty narrow speaking on human right issues overseas often avoiding them in Asia

For example, in the case of North Africa it was unfortunate since perhaps there would have been less kidnappings of young women if Hillary wasn't soft of Boko Haram due to the donars

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/09/opinion/gingrich-hillary-clinton-boko-haram-terrorist/index.html

Got anyone besides Newt's opinion?

 

[metis]

Hillary has been very outspoken if favor of both women's rights, children's right, and human rights in general. Newt has always been a political hack willing to say and do pretty much anything-- just ask his wives. His highly partisan and divisive approach has been credited for causing so much of the political animosity we now see.

BTW, McConnell praised Hillary for her intelligence and duty about a week or so ago: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...linton-belittles-trump-who-calls-out-clinton/

 

[Shadow Wolf]

With Mike Pence being a potential running mate of Trump, it only proves the "moral compass" of the Republicans is non-existant as Pence tried to pass a bill saying it's a "religious right" to discriminate. There is nothing moral about the RFRA bill he passed, and there is certainly absolutely nothing in the Bible to suggest Jesus would approve of such a thing.
What, really, has the world come to when the "Jesus party" is less moral than a group like the Satanic Temple? Republicans go around condemning everyone who isn't like them, but people who follow the Devil are more tolerant and accepting of others, and more loving of their neighbors, which is what Jesus taught yet the "Jesus party" has a very hard time with.

 

[metis]

With Mike Pence being a potential running mate of Trump, it only proves the "moral compass" of the Republicans is non-existant as Pence tried to pass a bill saying it's a "religious right" to discriminate. There is nothing moral about the RFRA bill he passed, and there is certainly absolutely nothing in the Bible to suggest Jesus would approve of such a thing.
What, really, has the world come to when the "Jesus party" is less moral than a group like the Satanic Temple? Republicans go around condemning everyone who isn't like them, but people who follow the Devil are more tolerant and accepting of others, and more loving of their neighbors, which is what Jesus taught yet the "Jesus party" has a very hard time with.

Well said, imo, and I find it so bizarre that so many who say they're religious, including what appears to be a majority of evangelicals, are willing to vote for a guy who does not even get close to expressing basic Christian/Jewish/other religion's values. Since when is demeaning others, making fun of people, name-calling, "bombing the hell out of ___", putting money over people, etc. basic moral values taught in churches/synagogues/mosques, temples/etc.? And then he says he doesn't need any forgiveness from God?

Is the American public willing to stoop that low?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Well said, imo, and I find it so bizarre that so many who say they're religious, including what appears to be a majority of evangelicals, are willing to vote for a guy who does not even get close to expressing basic Christian/Jewish/other religion's values. Since when is demeaning others, making fun of people, name-calling, "bombing the hell out of ___", putting money over people, etc. basic moral values taught in churches/synagogues/mosques, temples/etc.? And then he says he doesn't need any forgiveness from God?

Is the American public willing to stoop that low?

I don't think the public is willing to stoop low but that they have listened to propaganda. In particular many feel afraid to support the Democrats. Many actually, really, do say that they think Hillary is a criminal who belongs in court. They actually, really, do think that Obama belongs in prison, too.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think the public is willing to stoop low but that they have listened to propaganda. In particular many feel afraid to support the Democrats. Many actually, really, do say that they think Hillary is a criminal who belongs in court. They actually, really, do think that Obama belongs in prison, too.

For the record.....
Hillary is a criminal.
Obama is not.

 

[YmirGF]

I don't think the public is willing to stoop low but that they have listened to propaganda. In particular many feel afraid to support the Democrats. Many actually, really, do say that they think Hillary is a criminal who belongs in court. They actually, really, do think that Obama belongs in prison, too.

From what I gather, there is a pretty even split in legal opinions about the Hildebeeast's antics. Likewise, I''ve just not heard that some folks think Obama should be in jail. For what?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well said, imo, and I find it so bizarre that so many who say they're religious, including what appears to be a majority of evangelicals, are willing to vote for a guy who does not even get close to expressing basic Christian/Jewish/other religion's values. Since when is demeaning others, making fun of people, name-calling, "bombing the hell out of ___", putting money over people, etc. basic moral values taught in churches/synagogues/mosques, temples/etc.? And then he says he doesn't need any forgiveness from God?

Is the American public willing to stoop that low?

Really, it enforces the idea that the Left really needs to get behind Clinton for the Supreme Court appointments alone. Pence's first RFRA passed, and it caused an international embarrassment and many corporations threatened to cease operations in the state. "Religious rights" became an issue, it got so bad that even "the right to not work with certain people over religious reasons" was mentioned, and it's clear that to Pence "religious rights" are above civil rights and liberties above others. Later, the "RFRA.2" was shot down because it deliberately left out gender identity and expression, and it because it still left too much open for "religious rights" to trample the rights of others. That is Trump's idea of someone who just might be nothing more than a heartbeat away from Presidency.

 

[Brickjectivity]

From what I gather, there is a pretty even split in legal opinions about the Hildebeeast's antics. Likewise, I''ve just not heard that some folks think Obama should be in jail. For what?

Treason. He is accused of treason, frequently.