Do you defend Trump's infidelity?

[Teallaura]

Please vote. Feel free to explain your vote, if necessary.

No. Character DOES matter. Had I known for certain pre-election, I'm not sure what I'd have done since I couldn't vote at that point for either candidate.

That said, I can't claim to be shocked - nor can anyone else older than ten. We knew how flamboyant he'd been all these years - and how many marriages he'd had - so this can't be a surprise.

Moving on, if it happened eleven years ago and is not happening now, it's a non-issue. I can name a dozen Republican candidates that wouldn't have a leg to stand on in the same instance - but they were all running on moral high ground. Trump never did. Jerk, yes; hypocrite, no. This is between him and his wife - and she should get to slug him if she wants.

No human being comes with a perfect past so unless it's relevant for some legit reason, get over it.

[Juvenal]

No. Character DOES matter. Had I known for certain pre-election, I'm not sure what I'd have done since I couldn't vote at that point for either candidate.

Most of what I've heard about Clinton's acceptability from caution-quote "conservatives" amounted to serially debunked conspiracy theories like Benghazi and Uranium One, and conspiracy theories that weren't even worth debunking, like the Vince Foster assassination.

Hence the caution quotes.

Please tell me you had better reasons for withholding your vote. It's not as if she was running as a *cough* Democratic *cough* socialist.

That said, I can't claim to be shocked - nor can anyone else older than ten. We knew how flamboyant he'd been all these years - and how many marriages he'd had - so this can't be a surprise.

Moving on, if it happened eleven years ago and is not happening now, it's a non-issue. I can name a dozen Republican candidates that wouldn't have a leg to stand on in the same instance - but they were all running on moral high ground. Trump never did. Jerk, yes; hypocrite, no. This is between him and his wife - and she should get to slug him if she wants.

No human being comes with a perfect past so unless it's relevant for some legit reason, get over it.

The hush money was a week before the election, and the spurious denials are ongoing.

[KingsGambit]

I did not vote for Trump so I have nothing to defend.

[One Bad Pig]

Most of what I've heard about Clinton's acceptability from caution-quote "conservatives" amounted to serially debunked conspiracy theories like Benghazi and Uranium One...

More like, serially hand-waved away by a fawning press. Her Benghazi defense was about as convincing as her ridiculous "...you mean, with a cloth?" quote regarding wiping her server. The latter, by the way, was rather more on the radar of 'caution-quote "conservatives"' around the time of voting than Benghazi, and Uranium One was more or less off the radar screen come election time.

[Juvenal]

More like, serially hand-waved away by a fawning press. Her Benghazi defense was ...

Benghazi.

As in, yet another conspiracy theory accusing her of murdering yet another friend.

I mean, really.

It gets old.

[rogue06]

Benghazi.

As in, yet another conspiracy theory accusing her of murdering yet another friend.

I mean, really.

It gets old.

Not sure if many ever accused her of murdering Christopher Stevens, but rather through inaction and ineptitude allowed him to get killed. But if you need to present the most extreme position to attack...

And then there was the cover-up which often can be worse than the actual action being concealed.

[Catholicity]

So far the vote is 100% "no" - all conservatives.

Where is your vote?

I don't care what I'm considered, Trump's actions are distasteful. There is a big problem, was what Trump did illegal? If he did something illegal (harrassment rape unauthorized photos etc...) Then he should be prosecuted. The governor in my state is being prosecuted for unauthorized photos. Trump talks like a jerk walks like a jerk and acts like a jerk, but its not illegal to be a jerk. Bill Clinton violated office property then lied about it. That's the issue I'm having. And no that is NOT a defense. That guy in Alabama needed to be investigated. Does Trump also warrant investigation?

[Juvenal]

Not sure if many ever accused her of murdering Christopher Stevens, but rather through inaction and ineptitude allowed him to get killed. But if you need to present the most extreme position to attack...

*to get himself killed. His local security forces, that he arranged, deserted him, and he died.

Correction accepted.

So she didn't murder a friend, she was just ... responsible for a friend's death.

It gets old.

It's not as if her accusers were trying to prevent another attack.

Or as if her internet detractors were ever interested in what actually happened.

And then there was the cover-up which often can be worse than the actual action being concealed.

Another conspiracy theory.

[Juvenal]

I don't care what I'm considered, Trump's actions are distasteful. There is a big problem, was what Trump did illegal? If he did something illegal (harrassment rape unauthorized photos etc...) Then he should be prosecuted. The governor in my state is being prosecuted for unauthorized photos. Trump talks like a jerk walks like a jerk and acts like a jerk, but its not illegal to be a jerk. Bill Clinton violated office property then lied about it. That's the issue I'm having. And no that is NOT a defense. That guy in Alabama needed to be investigated. Does Trump also warrant investigation?

Kinda depends on which "what he did" we're talking about. Having unprotected sex with porn stars with a pregnant wife on the side is distasteful, but it isn't illegal. Other actions are less of the first, and considerably more of the second.

Checking his business dealings was a supposed red line, not that the president has any real say in it — acting on that red line is a red line for others with the ability to end his presidency.

What puts him in peril is the connection between those dealings and Russia. Prior public statements by Jr. strongly suggest the Russians had leverage on him through his role selling property to Russian mobsters engaged in money laundering. That's distasteful, but not so distasteful as having sex with porn stars, without a condom.

And it's not the money laundering that's likely to make Melania annoyed. But it's the money laundering that should worry Trump the most, because Mueller's been interviewing those mobsters.

He's Trump. He's rich. He can always get another wife.

[demi-conservative]

Or as if her internet detractors were ever interested in what actually happened.

Did that witch ever tell truth about what happen, or still 'youtube video on internet started it all', still lying to families of dead.

Nasty woman!

[Mountain Man]

Benghazi.

As in, yet another conspiracy theory accusing her of murdering yet another friend.

I mean, really.

It gets old.

Benghazi was not a conspiracy theory. It really happened. Hillary was really negligent in her duties, and people really died because of it, and then she lied to the American people (and to faces of the victims' families) when she blamed it on a YouTube video that nobody had ever heard of and had the innocent filmmaker thrown in jail. Unfortunately, our Congress was wholly unable/unwilling to hold her accountable.

[rogue06]

*to get himself killed. His local security forces, that he arranged, deserted him, and he died.

Correction accepted.

So she didn't murder a friend, she was just ... responsible for a friend's death.

It gets old.

It's not as if her accusers were trying to prevent another attack.

Or as if her internet detractors were ever interested in what actually happened.



Another conspiracy theory.

Which all explains why she felt the need to cook up (or at the very least promote) a fabricated story blaming everything on an obscure YouTube video

[Juvenal]

Which all explains why she felt the need to cook up (or at the very least promote) a fabricated story blaming everything on an obscure YouTube video

You want to talk about Benghazi without first doing the reading.

That's cute.

Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

Pop quiz. Who created the talking point for Rice that listed the video?

The initials will do.

Hint: They owned the annex in Benghazi.


This abandonment of factual bases didn't start with Trump, but it's brought us there.

In the best case, it will take a long time to recover from Trump. America’s word is near worthless today. It’s on America’s word that global security has rested since 1945.

The bubble of yellow journalism that's allowed right wing partisans to trust in Trump doesn't extend beyond our borders.

[Mountain Man]

You criticize "yellow journalism" and then link to an opinion piece by one of the yellowest "journalists" in the industry, published in one of the yellowest rags on the market today.

You can't make this up.

Although I suppose it's possible you were being deliberately ironic. It's hard to tell with liberals.

[Juvenal]

Benghazi was not a conspiracy theory. It really happened. Hillary was really negligent in her duties, and people really died because of it, and then she lied to the American people (and to faces of the victims' families) when she blamed it on a YouTube video that nobody had ever heard of and had the innocent filmmaker thrown in jail. Unfortunately, our Congress was wholly unable/unwilling to hold her accountable.

The first 9/11 was not a conspiracy theory. It really happened. Bush was really negligent in his duties, and thousands of Americans really died because of it, and then he lied to the American people (and to the faces of the victims' families) when he linked it to Saddam and killed thousands more Americans (and hundreds of thousands of foreigners who likewise had nothing to do with 9/11) to eliminate weapons of mass destruction that had been abandoned more than a decade previously. Unfortunately, our Congress, and the Obama administration, were wholly unable/unwilling to hold him accountable.

The difference here isn't just partisan perspective, democrats v. republicans, or the scale, thousands to one, though those should be kept in mind. It's not even the difference in usage of the CIA, from Rice following their talking points to Cheney leaking the identity of the wife of a naysaying diplomat.

It's that the conspiracy theorists have taken over the presidency.