Trump: Vote For an Alleged Sexual Predator Because He’s Tough On Crime

[dqhall]

Trump: Vote For an Alleged Sexual Predator Because He’s Tough On Crime

tulc(is surprised by some of "The Party of Family Values" peoples response to this situation)

Jesus taught that lust is wrong. Paul wrote fornication is wrong. The Hebrews used to fine rapists, giving the fine to the family of the victim. They may have stoned an adulterer or adulteress.

It is difficult for Trump to be against those who participated in unwanted physical contact. There is an uncensored recording of Trump bragging about groping women's p*****, as if there was nothing they could do to resist him.

Ray Moore complained that since the complaint against him was from thirty years ago, it should not be brought up now.

In Bill O'Reilly's sexual misconduct case, numerous women stepped forward to testify. One of the women recorded a telephone conversation while Bill was trying to arrange a sexual encounter with her describing in graphic details what he wanted to do with her. She claimed he was constantly calling her with lewd propositions. Transcripts are available online. Bill O'Reilly was fired from Fox News.

A Catholic priest was convicted of sexual misconduct when there was only one witness to testify and the priest denied any wrong doing. I worry innocent people might be falsely convicted.

 

[JackRT]

As society evolves the "power dynamics" change with it. No one could have predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union even 5 years earlier. On the home front the change in attitude towards homosexuality was unthinkable earlier. I think the same could be said for the empowerment of these abused women. I think the age of patriarchy is drawing slowly and painfully to an ignominious conclusion.

 

[Sistrin]

Trump of course would want someone misusing sex. Makes him feel more normal.

And you know this how?

I am sorry I supported Bill Clinton, but I can't go back and change it now.

Been hearing that excuse a lot lately. Tell us, what was primary concern which governed your thinking during the Clinton years as opposed to the primary concern which governs your thinking now?

This is real stuff, and I hate it that people don't even care about kids.

Who here said they did not care about kids?

How do you rationalize a thought pattern which only allows you to conclude if person A believes the true concern of the liberal establishment is claiming Moore's Senate seat regardless of guilt or innocence they must not care about children? Or if they do not blindly accept the allegations as gospel truth because a woman made them they do not care about children? Such logic reeks of programming, not erudition.

Young teens serve as pages for those guys. Would you send your 14 year-old daughter over to visit Moore or be a page for him, knowing what we know now?

I wouldn't send a 14 year old child to be a page for any politician. But you do know that at the time these incidents were alleged to have taken place, Moore was a registered Democrat campaigning and performing the duties of his office as a proud member of the Democrat Party, don't you? How does that fit into your paradigm?

If not, why don't you care about other people's children.

And here we go again. If I do not blindly accept the narrative, I must hate children.

I am actually completely horrified that I, an immoral liberal, have to go on a Christian forum and say it's not okay for men in their thirties to be sexual with young teens.

Please, illustrate for all of us who here ever said such behavior was Ok? Seriously, you made the charge, now back it up.

 

[chilehed]

I know of no one who supports the murder of babies.

My understanding is that he supports the idea that women have the right to kill their unborn babies, which most certainly is murder.

It's truly bizzare to hear people complain about their pet "violation of human rights" cause when their support of "abortion rights" means that they really don't think that human rights exist at all.

 

[Rion]

I think the age of patriarchy is drawing slowly and painfully to an ignominious conclusion.

The age of the patriarchy is dead in the West. If you want to hasten its conclusion, I'd suggest you head towards the Middle East.

 

[JackRT]

The age of the patriarchy is dead in the West.

I wish that were true. It might indeed be faltering but it is still strong in some sectors.

 

[Rion]

I wish that were true. It might indeed be faltering but it is still strong in some sectors.

Yeah, but we're all aware of Hollywood and the media at this point.

 

[JackRT]

Yeah, but we're all aware of Hollywood and the media at this point.

One of the sectors that I was thinking of Christianity itself.

 

[Rion]

One of the sectors that I was thinking of Christianity itself.

That is so incredibly broad I can't really respond to it.

 

[Archivist]

My understanding is that he supports the idea that women have the right to kill their unborn babies, which most certainly is murder.

It's truly bizzare to hear people complain about their pet "violation of human rights" cause when their support of "abortion rights" means that they really don't think that human rights exist at all.

If you want to say that he supports a woman’s right to have an abortion you are right, although he opposes late term abortions except to save the health or life of the pregnant. Supporting a woman’s right to choose is different from murdering babies.

 

[Archivist]

The age of the patriarchy is dead in the West. If you want to hasten its conclusion, I'd suggest you head towards the Middle East.

Nonsense. Men can go too less in most of the US but women generally cannot. Whose last name does the women generally take when she gets married? Even if the woman keeps her maiden name, whose last name do the children usually get? And those are minor issues, ignoring questions of equal pay for equal work, female representation in corporate management, female leadership roles in families. Don’t tell me patriarchy is dead.

 

[chilehed]

If you want to say that he supports a woman’s right to have an abortion you are right, although he opposes late term abortions except to save the health or life of the pregnant. Supporting a woman’s right to choose is different from murdering babies.

Abortion is the murder of a baby. Abortion can be supported only if you think that no unborn human being has human rights, and if unborn human beings have no human rights then NO human being has them. Doug Jones supports abortion, therefore he supports the murder of babies and denies the existence of human rights.

He's infinitely less qualified to hold office than a mere pederast (bad though pederasty is).

 

[Archivist]

Abortion is the murder of a baby. Abortion can be supported only if you think that no unborn human being has human rights, and if unborn human beings have no human rights then NO human being has them. He supports abortion, therefore he supports the murder of babies and denies the existence of human rights.

He's infinitely less qualified to hold office than a mere pederast.

Abortion isn’t murder. If you think it is you are wrong.

 

[Rion]

Nonsense. Men can go too less in most of the US but women generally cannot.

I really don't know what you're saying here. Men can go to less? What?

Whose last name does the women generally take when she gets married? Even if the woman keeps her maiden name, whose last name do the children usually get?

Those are traditions which vary from society to society. In Spain, for example, everyone has two last names. As for why that particular tradition began, giving the child the father's last name meant that the father acknowledged the child as his. Since most people didn't have a last name for a very long time, this was adopted from royalty which wouldn't grant the last name to children the father didn't acknowledge. The reason royal women didn't do this is because it's kind of obvious it was her kid since she birthed them, you know?

And those are minor issues, ignoring questions of equal pay for equal work

female representation in corporate management

Related to the wage gap claim above.

female leadership roles in families

Explain, please.

 

[chilehed]

Abortion isn’t murder. If you think it is you are wrong.

And the Nazis weren't guilty of murdering Jews because in Germany the law said that it wasn't murder to kill Jews, is that it?

Murder is the intentional killing of an innocent human being, and abortion is that by definition. You can try to convince yourself otherwise all you wish, but you have no coherent grounds on which to do so.

 

[JackRT]

That is so incredibly broad I can't really respond to it.

Any organization, religious or secular and including marriage, that fails to include women in leadership roles right up to the very top is guilty of several evils. First, it is the insult to the women themselves by viewing them as less worthy. Second, it is the insult to God by denigrating half of God’s creation. If we continue to treat women in this way, then the human race is condemned to stand on one foot, see with one eye, hear with one ear and think with one half the human mind ---- and it shows.

 

[Rion]

Any organization, religious or secular and including marriage, that fails to include women in leadership roles right up to the very top is guilty of several evils. First, it is the insult to the women themselves by viewing them as less worthy. Second, it is the insult to God by denigrating half of God’s creation. If we continue to treat women in this way, then the human race is condemned to stand on one foot, see with one eye, hear with one ear and think with one half the human mind ---- and it shows.

Are you talking about women pastors? That's not patriarchal, that's a disagreement regarding interpreting scripture.

 

[JackRT]

Are you talking about women pastors? That's not patriarchal, that's a disagreement regarding interpreting scripture.

I regard the patriarchy of scripture as being entirely cultural --- certainly not divinely mandated.

 

[Archivist]

I really don't know what you're saying here. Men can go to less? What?

Sorry, typing on an iPhone so errors happen. Men can go topless in public, in most of the nation women cannot.

Those are traditions which vary from society to society. In Spain, for example, everyone has two last names. As for why that particular tradition began, giving the child the father's last name meant that the father acknowledged the child as his. Since most people didn't have a last name for a very long time, this was adopted from royalty which wouldn't grant the last name to children the father didn't acknowledge. The reason royal women didn't do this is because it's kind of obvious it was her kid since she birthed them, you know?

But I wasn't talking about either Spain or royalty.

Related to the wage gap claim above.

Let's try something a bit more professional than a YouTube post. This is from Pew: The narrowing, but persistent, gender gap in pay

Explain, please.

In a great many families it is assumed that the man, not the woman, is the head of family.

 

[Archivist]

And the Nazis weren't guilty of murdering Jews because in Germany the law said that it wasn't murder to kill Jews, is that it?

Murder is the intentional killing of an innocent human being, and abortion is that by definition. You can try to convince yourself otherwise all you wish, but you have no coherent grounds on which to do so.

But we aren't talking about the Nazis are we?

Murder is a legal term, and abortion does not meet the definition because the killing must be illegal. Abortion is not illegal.

And, as I said earlier, I agree that the Democrat candidate supports a woman's right to have an abortion although he opposes late-term abortions unless they are required to save the life or preserve the health of the pregnant woman. Our point of contention is that I do not regard a legal abortion as murder because it is not. I think we simply have to agree to disagree on that point.