bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:Principles? How many GOP prospects who have been linked with the Duggers (and in particular the son) have explained their position since the whole sister-molesting thing came out?

I assume you guys would avoid supporting any of those candidates?

I would. I also think Josh should be tried.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:Principles? How many GOP prospects who have been linked with the Duggers (and in particular the son) have explained their position since the whole sister-molesting thing came out?

I assume you guys would avoid supporting any of those candidates?

I would. I also think Josh should be tried.

He can't be, apparently - at the time the State had a statute of limitations of 3 years so it expired years ago.

What worries me most about it is the culture of the Duggars' sect in that there is a tendency to put responsibility on a woman for a man's desire. He got work experience and a ticking off, they got to still see their abuser and the people who did not report him to the police as family.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Principles? How many GOP prospects who have been linked with the Duggers (and in particular the son) have explained their position since the whole sister-molesting thing came out?

I assume you guys would avoid supporting any of those candidates?

Oh boy. You want to go down the "guilt by bankshot association" road? With Hillary? Really?

You already have. Just seeing if you would apply similar standards to her potential opponents.

bbauska wrote:This is bringing an interesting question to mind.

What would it take for Freeman to NOT vote for Mrs. Clinton.

Here is the list of candidates that I would not vote for:
Jeb Bush
Rand Paul
Mike Huckabee
Donald Trump

For me, her honesty is so problematic.

freeman3 wrote:I'll vote for who I think will do the best job. You and DF voted for Bush II, right Brad? Without getting into a retrospective analysis I think there was plenty of reason to doubt that Bush II was going to be an adequate president. Drank his way thorugh his 20s and 30s without accomplishing anything of note. And if you voted for him, you were willing to trust such a man with enormous power. I am comfortable with entrusting the presidency to HIllary Clinton, given her intelligence and extensive experience. Apparently, Brad, you would be willing to vote for Ben Carson a man who clearly is not qualified to be president. He may be a brilliant surgeon but his background outside of that has not prepared him for the presidency. No way. Just listen to him talk.

So I am plenty comfortable with voting for Hillary Clinton in spite of supposed, vague unproven ethical violations. As for her honesty, if you think that any politican can survive telling the unvarnished truth...you're naive.

freeman3 wrote:So I am plenty comfortable with voting for Hillary Clinton in spite of supposed, vague unproven ethical violations. As for her honesty, if you think that any politican can survive telling the unvarnished truth...you're naive.

freeman3 wrote: I am comfortable with entrusting the presidency to HIllary Clinton, given her intelligence and extensive experience.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

freeman3 wrote: I am comfortable with entrusting the presidency to HIllary Clinton, given her intelligence and extensive experience.

I find this comment most intriguing. What would be her extensive experience? She has 8 years as a U.S. Senator and 4 years as a Secretary of State. I am not sure that would qualify as extensive.

Interestingly, there was a recent poll done, I believe, in Iowa asking who voters supported. Anybody who said Hillary because of her experience and accomplishments where asked to list her experience and accomplishment. Nobody could list anything.

freeman3 wrote:The Right has been trying to destroy the Clintons for over 20 years. I understand their frustration that they cannot get them. But anyone the Koch brothers go after, I am inclined to support.

And Brad if they can convict Hillary of something, I suppose I will have to support someone else. Good luck on that!

freeman3 wrote:The Right has been trying to destroy the Clintons for over 20 years. I understand their frustration that they cannot get them. But anyone the Koch brothers go after, I am inclined to support.

And Brad if they can convict Hillary of something, I suppose I will have to support someone else. Good luck on that!

freeman3 wrote:Well, Abraham Lincoln did not have much in terms of noteworthy accomplishments (other than being a pretty good lawyer and making some good speeches) until he became president. He turned out ok...

Clinton was not in the Senate long enough to obtain enough power to do anything there. She had a solid run at Secretary of State, though with no big successes. She's smart and she has the experience. I am going to go with that, even if I can't point to past signature achievements. I don't know--what Republican candidate has done something significant?