Vort

It's hard to stay non-partisan in a heavily polarized environment

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Ivana told her story, Trump found it it was about to go to press, he deployed his lawyers and tried to get her to tweak her story, and she did--to a point. But the factual details remain, they are damning--and they are not the fabrication of a biased liberal press, having come out long before Trump had become the face of the GOP.

It's certainly a damning allegation. But it is exactly that—an allegation. I know from intimate, though third-hand, experience that women divorcing their husbands can and often will falsely accuse them of all sorts of unspeakable behavior. So Ivana's allegations alone don't settle the matter for me.

I'm curious how you receive Ivana's updated statement, included in the very article you linked to.

Update 7/28/15 9:50 AM: Ivana Trump released a statement Tuesday morning to CNN.

“I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald. The story is totally without merit. Donald and I are the best of friends and together have raised three children that we love and are very proud of. I have nothing but fondness for Donald and wish him the best of luck on his campaign. Incidentally, I think he would make an incredible president.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The non-partisan in me accepts this new information (new to me, that is). It's sad. It's bad. It highlights the horrible position that secular fundamentalists have put folks like me in. There is no question but that the donkeys hate hate hate Judeo-Christian morality--especially concerning the LGBT community. They so hate us that they will force Catholic nuns to fund abortion insurance, they will try to shut down Hobby Lobby and Chick Fil-A, they will bankrupt conservative bakers and florists, and, given the power, they will go after our private schools and universities--demanding LGBT housing, no morality codes, etc. So 2015, along comes The Donald, and the media flock to him like cats to catnip. MSM figure he's the weakest of the candidates and so provide him an abundance of free attention. Shock and awe, he wins the GOP nomination and beats HRC. Ashamed, but enrichened, they go into full attack mode, and humiliate any faith leader who says anything positive about the guy. The latest was Nightline's host asking VPOTUS if, in his conversations with God, he repents for the blood on the Trump administration's hands. And now, what are we to do. Re-elect a very imperfect vessel who sides with us, elects judges loyal to the Constitution...or do we pick the guy who is also sleazy, but perhaps less so, who is beholden to the very people who wish us so much harm?  My non-partisan answer:  Stay safe...remember social distancings...drink lots of liquids. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Vort said:

It's certainly a damning allegation. But it is exactly that—an allegation. I know from intimate, though third-hand, experience that women divorcing their husbands can and often will falsely accuse them of all sorts of unspeakable behavior. So Ivana's allegations alone don't settle the matter for me.

I'm curious how you receive Ivana's updated statement, included in the very article you linked to.

Update 7/28/15 9:50 AM: Ivana Trump released a statement Tuesday morning to CNN.

“I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald. The story is totally without merit. Donald and I are the best of friends and together have raised three children that we love and are very proud of. I have nothing but fondness for Donald and wish him the best of luck on his campaign. Incidentally, I think he would make an incredible president.”

We're not on juries. Our suspicions do not result in any legal harm to POTUS. We're asked to surmise and then weigh out impression against the other side. Is it possible--probable even--that the then Mr. Trump, going through a difficult divorce, might have let some of his emotions play out in his final time with his wife? As JAG says, were Ivana our daughter, would we not have felt significant parental outrage? THAT SAID, Ivana does not seem to have felt threatened or endangered. Further, the couple appears to have reconciled their hard feelings.

No reading of this brings me to the conclusion that the then Mr. Trump behaved honorably. In the last four years there are also multiple incidents, including the phone call that led to his House impeachment, that were less than honorable. Still...nothing raises to the level of pushing me to side with the other guy--given his party's visceral hatred of my faith, my values, and even my economic perspective.

Edited by prisonchaplain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Traveler said:

Has Trump shown his tax returns? - it is not a lie nor is it illegal to not make tax returns public.  Why on earth do you think otherwise???

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

Did he throw Hillary in jail yet? - Where did he say he would.  He has said that she should be investigated and if guilty should be prosecuted.

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

Is global warming a Chinese conspiracy?  Where did he say that??? 

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

Is your healthcare much cheaper now that he has been elected? 

No.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Vort said:

It's certainly a damning allegation. But it is exactly that—an allegation. I know from intimate, though third-hand, experience that women divorcing their husbands can and often will falsely accuse them of all sorts of unspeakable behavior. So Ivana's allegations alone don't settle the matter for me.

I'm curious how you receive Ivana's updated statement, included in the very article you linked to.

Update 7/28/15 9:50 AM: Ivana Trump released a statement Tuesday morning to CNN.

“I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald. The story is totally without merit. Donald and I are the best of friends and together have raised three children that we love and are very proud of. I have nothing but fondness for Donald and wish him the best of luck on his campaign. Incidentally, I think he would make an incredible president.”

Ivana’s initial, sworn affidavit apparently formed part of the basis for the divorce court in fact finding that grounds for divorce included “cruel and inhuman treatment”.  (New York didn’t have no-fault divorce started the time.) (https://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/12/nyregion/trumps-get-divorce-next-who-gets-what.html)  Trump’s lawyers told the press that the “cruelty” involved Trump being seen in public with his new girlfriend, but of course, that would have given rise to grounds of adultery rather than cruelty; and Ivana’a lawyers didn’t say anything at all.  Ivana got her divorce settlement in exchange for a gag order; so to this day she can only say what Donald lets her say about it.  In that context it is HUGELY telling that a) her two “clarifications” have said *only* what Donald needed her to say in the moment; and b) neither of them has been under penalty of perjury.  

I would agree with you that at this point there’s not enough to convict the guy beyond a reasonable doubt.  But a divorce court already did rule against him back in 1990 by the lesser standard of “preponderance of the evidence”, which is also the standard I tend to deploy in governing my everyday actions—and in particular, my choice of political candidates.

A court of competent jurisdiction has made a factual finding that Donald Trump has, towards Ivana, been both “cruel and inhuman”.  So to that I unabashedly add:

Rapist.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough.  Trump has certainly said time and time again he'd release his tax returns.  Not all of his statements were couched in vague language/probablies/shoulds/etc.
 

Here's a Trump tax return: http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/trump2005tax.pdf

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

A court of last has called Donald Trump “cruel and inhuman”.  And to that I unabashedly add:

Rapist.

That would explain why you hate the guy on a much deeper, more visceral level than I do, or probably ever did.

President Oaks visited my son's law school about six months ago and had dinner with the LDS students (all twelve of them) and their families. Obviously, they talked a lot about legal stuff, including current events. My son's impression was that the First Presidency was not exactly crazy about Donald Trump. President Oaks never said anything like that, of course, but that was the vibe my son picked up on. So you are perhaps in some good company in your opinions of Trump.

For myself, if there are no dramatic changes in the next seven months, I expect I'll be voting for him for the first time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Vort said:

That would explain why you hate the guy on a much deeper, more visceral level than I do, or probably ever did.

President Oaks visited my son's law school about six months ago and had dinner with the LDS students (all twelve of them) and their families. Obviously, they talked a lot about legal stuff, including current events. My son's impression was that the First Presidency was not exactly crazy about Donald Trump. President Oaks never said anything like that, of course, but that was the vibe my son picked up on. So you are perhaps in some good company in your opinions of Trump.

For myself, if there are no dramatic changes in the next seven months, I expect I'll be voting for him for the first time.

In fairness to The Donald, I can’t think of any current western, secular leader who I’d be happy to know that the First Presidency was really “crazy about”.

There’s been a lot of talk about “the Benedict option” in the last decade, but it’s interesting to me that as a church our most drastic steps in that direction have only happened in the post-Obama era.  It’s one thing to firmly believe that the progressive Democrats are fundamentally opposed to the Church and its values; it’s another to see the Church actually start battening down the hatches even when the GOP is in power.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

There’s been a lot of talk about “the Benedict option” in the last decade

Not by me. I had to Google the term to find out what it meant. Interesting idea. The very concept of "health share" could be viewed as a "Benedict option".

(Apropos of nothing, "Benedict" means "well-said". Which may or may not be relevant.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Colirio, I just can’t understand why the prophet said that we would need to learn to receive revelation in order to be able to discern truth in the coming days.  /s


 

This political divide very much reminds me of the final days of the Jaredites when the people were gathered to Coriantumr or to Shiz. 



Ether 14:20 And they were divided; and a part of them fled to the army of Shiz, and a part of them fled to the army of Coriantumr.

 

Ether 15:6 And it came to pass that the people repented not of their iniquity; and the people of Coriantumr were stirred up to anger against the people of Shiz; and the people of Shiz were stirred up to anger against the people of Coriantumr; wherefore, the people of Shiz did give battle unto the people of Coriantumr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Vort said:

For myself, if there are no dramatic changes in the next seven months, I expect I'll be voting for him for the first time.

For myself, if there are no dramatic changes in the next seven months, I expect I'll be voMIting for him for the first time.

THis almost seems like one of those times when those two words have similar meanings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Vort said:

That would explain why you hate the guy on a much deeper, more visceral level than I do, or probably ever did.

President Oaks visited my son's law school about six months ago and had dinner with the LDS students (all twelve of them) and their families. Obviously, they talked a lot about legal stuff, including current events. My son's impression was that the First Presidency was not exactly crazy about Donald Trump. President Oaks never said anything like that, of course, but that was the vibe my son picked up on. So you are perhaps in some good company in your opinions of Trump.

For myself, if there are no dramatic changes in the next seven months, I expect I'll be voting for him for the first time.

Well, when I think of that in all honesty, I thought...

That would mean we are still all at home with the numbers of those under the Pandemic still being infected and dying.

At that point, if things were to be the same as they are now, the dead probably would be extremely high in this crisis.

I expect at that point, if people could actually get out and vote, Trump might not have good PR regarding the entire situation..

I think that many independents such as myself are ALREADY FAR MORE unhappy with Trump than we ever have been before.

Of course, that's saying things stay as they are now in a very literal sense, whereas I think you were discussing more of a political arena rather than situational today.  I would hope that there are some rather dramatic changes soon and we can all get back to some sense of normalcy with our lives.

Of course, as the Lord wills or is willing.  Whatever the Lord decides for us, we will see.

12 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

The non-partisan in me accepts this new information (new to me, that is). It's sad. It's bad. It highlights the horrible position that secular fundamentalists have put folks like me in. There is no question but that the donkeys hate hate hate Judeo-Christian morality--especially concerning the LGBT community. They so hate us that they will force Catholic nuns to fund abortion insurance, they will try to shut down Hobby Lobby and Chick Fil-A, they will bankrupt conservative bakers and florists, and, given the power, they will go after our private schools and universities--demanding LGBT housing, no morality codes, etc. So 2015, along comes The Donald, and the media flock to him like cats to catnip. MSM figure he's the weakest of the candidates and so provide him an abundance of free attention. Shock and awe, he wins the GOP nomination and beats HRC. Ashamed, but enrichened, they go into full attack mode, and humiliate any faith leader who says anything positive about the guy. The latest was Nightline's host asking VPOTUS if, in his conversations with God, he repents for the blood on the Trump administration's hands. And now, what are we to do. Re-elect a very imperfect vessel who sides with us, elects judges loyal to the Constitution...or do we pick the guy who is also sleazy, but perhaps less so, who is beholden to the very people who wish us so much harm?  My non-partisan answer:  Stay safe...remember social distancings...drink lots of liquids. :-)

And this is the conundrum that I think many face, including those who are not conservatives.  When we have someone we think is absolutely horrid in leading the US, but at the same time the other option that seems to be viable, or at least electable, is part of a party that want to destroy the very freedoms to practice the morals we hold dear...which choice to make?

Which excuses can we make?

Perhaps, the best choice is to try to find a third party that aligns more with what we feel is right.  Of course, many say that is throwing away one's vote, and currently they may be correct.

However, if enough people choose to vote for another candidate, one that is more aligned with our morals, then eventually they will win and the others will lose (or so we would hope, as long as we still live in a Democratic Republic).

Of course, there is still the problem of even identifying that individual in the first place.

It is a horrible position for many people.  They've rigged the system so that all the choices are bad, and none of them seem good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

And now, what are we to do. Re-elect a very imperfect vessel who sides with us, elects judges loyal to the Constitution...or do we pick the guy who is also sleazy, but perhaps less so, who is beholden to the very people who wish us so much harm?

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

And this is the conundrum that I think many face, including those who are not conservatives.  When we have someone we think is absolutely horrid in leading the US, but at the same time the other option that seems to be viable, or at least electable, is part of a party that want to destroy the very freedoms to practice the morals we hold dear...which choice to make?

Which excuses can we make?

The answer is a complex blend of many pieces of advice that we've been given on electing people to public office.

I have below select quotes from various sources.  But to come to my conclusion, it was necessary to go through all these sources in their entirety.  I'd recommend them as good reading to anyone interested in proper guidance on elections (especially the entire speech by Elder Oaks).

Quote

As citizens, Church members are encouraged to participate in political and governmental affairs, including involvement in the political party of their choice. Members are also urged to be actively engaged in worthy causes to improve their communities and make them wholesome places in which to live and rear families.

In accordance with the laws of their respective governments, members are encouraged to register to vote, to study issues and candidates carefully, and to vote for individuals whom they believe will act with integrity and sound judgment. Latter-day Saints have a special obligation to seek out, vote for, and uphold leaders who are honest, good, and wise (see Doctrine and Covenants 98:10).

-- Handbook

We're told we need to participate.  Then we're told to vote for honest, good, and wise leaders.  It gives no advice on what to do if all the choices are bad.  When considering "honest, good, and wise" I don't think there are many politicians AT ALL that would fit that bill by LDS standards.  Mike Lee is pretty good.  Mike Pence is pretty good.  That settles it.  We must only vote for people named "Mike". :) 

When faced with Hillary (one who aided and abetted a serial rapist and was completely irresponsible and lazy in her stint as Sec o State) vs. Trump (a serial adulterer, a bully, and a man who was so narcissistic... well you get the idea) what on earth are we to do?  Vote for none of the above?  I voted third party.  But in this two party system is that really "participating"?

I know so many liberal Saints who voted for Hillary because they just couldn't bring themselves to vote for Trump.  Yeah, like she was somehow better?   And if you took a poll of all the Saints who voted for Hillary, how many of them do you think also voted for Bill (not just a serial adulterer, but a serial rapist).

So, I find it almost impossible to really abide by this advice in today's climate.  It's enough to just throw your hands up and announce surrender.

OR...

We can learn about compromise.

Quote

There are those who maintain that any compromise is evil or shameful because it may involve some surrender of “principle” or freedom. Unfortunately, my years in the Senate have taught me that those who talk of “principle” in this context really mean “interest”—their self-interest. Nor is compromise a true diminution of one’s freedom or free agency, because the scriptures are full of admonitions to use our freedom in the service of others and not for our selfish ends. Christ said, “Agree with thine adversary quickly.” (Matt. 5:25.)

 -- Compromise Wallace F. Bennett

I didn't now Wallace Bennett.  I knew Bob Bennett (his son).  I actually lived in Utah during part of his tenure as US Senator.  I was part of the I-15 reconstruction project for the SLC Olympics. I thought he was better than Hatch, but not as good as Lee as Utah's senator. 

But what Wallace has said here (in bold) is very telling.  And I think it is true.  And I'll be talking about that further down below.

Quote

“We are to live in the world but not be of the world. We must live in the world because, as Jesus taught in a parable, His kingdom is ‘like leaven,’ whose function is to raise the whole mass by its influence (see Luke 13:21; Matthew 13:33; see also 1 Corinthians 5:6–8). His followers cannot do that if they associate only with those who share their beliefs and practices.

-- Elections, Hope, and Freedom Dallin H. Oaks.

What do we object to in some candidates?  That they do not live according to LDS beliefs?  Is that what we're looking for?

While the following quote is talking about "spiritual election", the principle of God's electing us carries over with how we elect public officials.

Quote

We see that elections are not all of the same kind. Since election has to do with God’s choice of persons or groups to accomplish His purposes, some may be elected by Him to one thing and some to another. Although the Lord uses certain individuals to accomplish His purposes, it does not necessarily follow that these persons will automatically receive a fulness of salvation thereby. For instance, Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus fulfilled certain purposes in the economy of God, but they apparently did it for their own reasons and not as conscious acts of faith and righteousness. On the other hand, salvation of one’s soul comes only by personal integrity and willing obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Thus there are some elections to be desired over others.

 -- Church article on "Election"

Let's go over these principles.

  • God is INVOLVED in the affairs of men
  • God seeks out honest, good, and wise leaders to lead His Kingdom
  • God compromised with Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Darius, Herod, Caesar, Columbus, King Noah, Jonah, King Saul, King David, Solomon, Morianton, The Greeks, The Romans, even Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.
  • God compromises not for his OWN self-interest, but for "the immortality and eternal life of man."
  • God deals with people who are MUCH less righteous than He.  And He works to RAISE those He works with.
  • God uses unrighteous men to do the right thing for the nation because their selfish motives will actually bring the nation closer to God's intents than slightly more righteous men whose motives drive them to take the nation further from God's intentions.

When going into the booth in 2016, I felt absolutely certain that Trump was going to be a TERRIBLE President.  I was seriously considering Hillary.  In the end, I couldn't vote for either of them.

Once the election was over, I followed the following counsel.

Quote

When our positions do not prevail, we should accept unfavorable results graciously and practice civility with our adversaries.

  -- Loving Others and Living with Differences Dallin H. Oaks

So, I accepted that Trump was President almost as reluctantly as I accepted that Obama was President.  I "knew" this was the end of America as we knew it.

But I began seeing that Trump's selfish, narcissistic, secular, worldly, unrighteous motivations were getting conservative actions done.  The work on the judiciary alone has brought us back to religious principle counseled by the Founders.  Religious freedom is winning again.  This was not an easy sell for me.  Even though I knew I was right about Trump being wrong for the country, I had to acknowledge he was "doing" things right for the country.

The counsel to find good, honest leaders was (as an example) 99.9% of the time, if a man will violate his oath to his wife, then how can we trust him to keep his oath of office?  Simple equation, right?  Well, Trump didn't keep his oath to his wife.  I wouldn't vote for him.  Since he has taken office, he's kept his promises to the country.  He's kept his oath of office.  This indicates that he IS AN EXCEPTION TO THAT RULE.

Recognize something about the quarantine.  I have not once heard Trump issue an executive order making it a criminal offense for any American to violate the guidelines he's outlined.  It was strongly suggested.  Governors then issued orders -- and not even all of them.  And I never heard him threatening to cut off any funding or government services solely for a violation of the guidelines.  (Yes, there was something or other about California... but that was a muddier issue than the general condition).

A public health emergency and he's not suspending Constitutional rights.  Yet ANY Democrat wouldn't hesitate to suspend Constitutional rights for ANYTHING they felt they could get away with.

I'll definitely be voting for someone as flawed as Trump is who will uphold the Constitution in the face of circumstances where so many others would feel justified in declaring martial law -- and many governors have.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Scott said:

I was on the phone and it was hard to post a bunch of links.   That Trump said he would release his tax returns is common knowlege.   I thought it would be pretty easy to do a quick Google seach, but apparently not.

Was it a lie or not? 

This is a simple yes or no question.

Conceded.

 

Quote

And where is the proof that Obama lies more than Trump?

Where are the sources and why haven't you called it out?

You need proof that Obama blamed the Benghazi incident to a riot caused by a YouTube video?

 

Now compare those 2 lies mentioned above. 

 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

What exactly do you think is not honorable about the phone call with Zelensky?

The worst part of course is that it was made public. It gave the appearance of POTUS of the richest most powerful country on earth haggling. Note--I'm not saying the call was wrong, or even unnecessary. Was it dignified, honorable? Did it show us at our best? READ--no need to rehash whether the call was legal, acceptable or even wise. I'm just saying it wasn't honorable. If it had not come to light I suspect it would belong in distant memories of 1,000s of calls made between world leaders over the years.

Edited by prisonchaplain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

The worst part of course is that it was made public.   

His name is Eric Ciaramella.

 

7 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

It gave the appearance of POTUS of the richest most powerful country on earth haggling.   

Dunno how that phone call gave that impression.

Diplomatic negotiations IS haggling.

 

7 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Was it dignified, honorable? Did it show us at our best? 

What is not dignified or honorable about it?  And what hampered the US image about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

The worst part of course is that it was made public. It gave the appearance of POTUS of the richest most powerful country on earth haggling. Note--I'm not saying the call was wrong, or even unnecessary. Was it dignified, honorable? Did it show us at our best? READ--no need to rehash whether the call was legal, acceptable or even wise. I'm just saying it wasn't honorable. If it had not come to light I suspect it would belong in distant memories of 1,000s of calls made between world leaders over the years.

Sounds like you understand that the president was doing his job.  It also sounds like you don't want to see or know about some of the jobs he has to do, and that is fair.  Because of this it sounds like you should be against those who forced this call into the public domain.. rather then letting it stay in the background with every other call the president needs to make.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

What is not dignified or honorable about it?  And what hampered the US image about it?

I suspect that much of what is communicated during actual negotiations would fall within this not dignified/honorable category. Haggling and dealing are, of course, necessary. However, usually, the actual deal-making is not made for public consumption. We're supposed to get the, "It was a great honor for Leader-X and I to meet and discuss our mutual interests. We are proud to announce this great new/improved partnership..."

Little was hampered, and a good amount of opposition energy was wasted. All I am saying is that the whole affair wasn't our best look. It's likely you could care less. Not sure I'm too worried either.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Because of this it sounds like you should be against those who forced this call into the public domain.. rather then letting it stay in the background with every other call the president needs to make.

I suppose I was mildly against them. On the other hand, it did allow for an incredible expenditure of wasted energy on the part of the media and the opposition party. How many judges were placed during all that? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I suspect that much of what is communicated during actual negotiations would fall within this not dignified/honorable category. Haggling and dealing are, of course, necessary. However, usually, the actual deal-making is not made for public consumption. We're supposed to get the, "It was a great honor for Leader-X and I to meet and discuss our mutual interests. We are proud to announce this great new/improved partnership..."

Little was hampered, and a good amount of opposition energy was wasted. All I am saying is that the whole affair wasn't our best look. It's likely you could care less. Not sure I'm too worried either.

 

Your assertion is that Trump - not anybody else - did not act honorably in his phone call to Zelensky.  I'm asking what about the phone call is not honorable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Your assertion is that Trump - not anybody else - did not act honorably in his phone call to Zelensky.  I'm asking what about the phone call is not honorable.

Maybe you over-read my comment or maybe I miscommunicated. Political haggling became public. It's not as pretty as diplomatic pronouncements. That's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, prisonchaplain said:

Maybe you over-read my comment or maybe I miscommunicated. Political haggling became public. It's not as pretty as diplomatic pronouncements. That's all.

I know I shouldn't push for it - especially since the statement led to a "not gonna vote for Biden" non-endorsement (which makes me happy) - but... it is rankling in my head and I got nothing better to do...

This is your statement - "No reading of this brings me to the conclusion that the then Mr. Trump behaved honorably. In the last four years there are also multiple incidents, including the phone call that led to his House impeachment, that were less than honorable."

You used the Zelensky phone call as further proof on top of the Ivana incident that Trump is not honorable.  So, I'm wondering if you're saying that the Ivana incident is a nothing-burger in the same manner as the Zelensky phone call being a nothing-burger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now