If Trump loses...

[NYcarbineer]

...and it's determined that his sexual/marital improprieties were a key factor,

shouldn't conservatives be happy, at least at some level?

Don't conservatives want the American people to be morally judgmental when it comes to matters of national importance? And the presidency is certainly of national importance...

Shouldn't it please them that the American voters rejected an adulterer, a sexual molester/predator?

Shouldn't please YOU, USMB conservatives?

 

[LaDexter]

We should reject the candidate who has precisely no patriotism to the US, who is corrupt, used to getting away with corruption and attacking those who notice, one with no merit, a career of fraud, enabling criminals, and punishing innocent people. We should reject the candidate who never created a single job, and vote for the one who has created a lot of jobs (Trump or Johnson), because we AMERICANS need MORE JOBS.

We should also notice who is a puppet and who is not. Trump is not a puppet. Hillary is, and her puppet master is the worst warmongering liar on the planet - Mr. Netanyahu, the man most responsible for 911.

In short, this election is about the survival of the US. One candidate knows how to balance a budget, one doesn't care and is hell bent on spending us into oblivion (ie Greece). One has achieved in life on his own merit, the other has no personal accomplishments at all. One will re-open the 911 investigation and pursue those who actually did it, the other is completely in bed with those who did it.

Trump and Johnson are far from perfect, but they are miles better than the worst monster to ever receive a major party Prez nomination...

 

[Maryland Patriot]

If would insinuate that there was a chance he could win.
Wrong use of the word "if"

 

[NYcarbineer]

We should reject the candidate who has precisely no patriotism to the US, who is corrupt, used to getting away with corruption and attacking those who notice, one with no merit, a career of fraud, enabling criminals, and punishing innocent people. We should reject the candidate who never created a single job, and vote for the one who has created a lot of jobs (Trump or Johnson), because we AMERICANS need MORE JOBS.

We should also notice who is a puppet and who is not. Trump is not a puppet. Hillary is, and her puppet master is the worst warmongering liar on the planet - Mr. Netanyahu, the man most responsible for 911.

In short, this election is about the survival of the US. One candidate knows how to balance a budget, one doesn't care and is hell bent on spending us into oblivion (ie Greece). One has achieved in life on his own merit, the other has no personal accomplishments at all. One will re-open the 911 investigation and pursue those who actually did it, the other is completely in bed with those who did it.

Trump and Johnson are far from perfect, but they are miles better than the worst monster to ever receive a major party Prez nomination...

So you're not in the category of values voters that I'm referring to. Fair enough.

btw, this thread is about Trump. This is about whether or not you vote for Trump, whether or not his wrongdoings matter to you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If would insinuate that there was a chance he could win.
Wrong use of the word "if"

There are plenty of people on this forum who have consistently believed Trump could win.

The question is, put another way, if Trump's morals don't matter to a Christian conservative or the like,

whose morals do matter?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

If would insinuate that there was a chance he could win.
Wrong use of the word "if"

There are plenty of people on this forum who have consistently believed Trump could win.

The question is, put another way, if Trump's morals don't matter to a Christian conservative or the like,

whose morals do matter?

Considering the left wants religion and its morals out of government, I offer the suggestion that it falls down to specific policy that each candidate is pretending to have an interest in following. Thus, looking at policy only, morals are not a consideration (as far as christians go) and Trump is the best suited for the job. In my opinion.
He still wont win.

 

[Anathema]

Shouldn't please YOU, USMB conservatives?

Real Conservatives like myself have never supported Trump to begin with. Some suggested they would vote AGAINST Clinton, as Trump is the lesser evil (in their minds); but no real Conservatives have ever backed Trump.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Shouldn't please YOU, USMB conservatives?

Real Conservatives like myself have never supported Trump to begin with. Some suggested they would vote AGAINST Clinton, as Trump is the lesser evil (in their minds); but no real Conservatives have ever backed Trump.

You're stepping on a lot of toes and leaping to some unsupportable conclusions with that one.

 

[B. Kidd]

This election is a true reflection of America today......corrupt (Hillary) vs. crazy (Trump). And morality and moral judgements no longer enter into the equation.

The rest of the civilized world has been put on notice! So, act accordingly..........

 

[NYcarbineer]

If would insinuate that there was a chance he could win.
Wrong use of the word "if"

There are plenty of people on this forum who have consistently believed Trump could win.

The question is, put another way, if Trump's morals don't matter to a Christian conservative or the like,

whose morals do matter?

Considering the left wants religion and its morals out of government, I offer the suggestion that it falls down to specific policy that each candidate is pretending to have an interest in following. Thus, looking at policy only, morals are not a consideration (as far as christians go) and Trump is the best suited for the job. In my opinion.
He still wont win.

I would think that wanting religion and morals IN government would start with not wanting to elect immoral irreligious presidents.

 

[occupied]

All partisan politics is fraught with double standards, especially among the party who thinks they own exclusive rights to the moral high ground. The Christian right especially can find infinite forgiveness for their own but none at all for those they consider outside their sad, fearful little tribe.

 

[Anathema]

You're stepping on a lot of toes and leaping to some unsupportable conclusions with that one.

I have no issue stomping on the toes of people who want to call themselves Conservatives but who don't accept what real Conservatism is or who won't walk the talk.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

If would insinuate that there was a chance he could win.
Wrong use of the word "if"

There are plenty of people on this forum who have consistently believed Trump could win.

The question is, put another way, if Trump's morals don't matter to a Christian conservative or the like,

whose morals do matter?

Considering the left wants religion and its morals out of government, I offer the suggestion that it falls down to specific policy that each candidate is pretending to have an interest in following. Thus, looking at policy only, morals are not a consideration (as far as christians go) and Trump is the best suited for the job. In my opinion.
He still wont win.

I would think that wanting religion and morals IN government would start with not wanting to elect immoral irreligious presidents.

If thats the case then obama should not be there, hillary should not be running, bill should have never been there, actually, I find it hard to think of one religiously moral president since Ive been old enough to vote.

 

[gtarguy921]

We should reject the candidate who has precisely no patriotism to the US, who is corrupt, used to getting away with corruption and attacking those who notice, one with no merit, a career of fraud, enabling criminals, and punishing innocent people....

So why did you vote for him a second time in 2004?

 

[occupied]

If would insinuate that there was a chance he could win.
Wrong use of the word "if"

There are plenty of people on this forum who have consistently believed Trump could win.

The question is, put another way, if Trump's morals don't matter to a Christian conservative or the like,

whose morals do matter?

Considering the left wants religion and its morals out of government, I offer the suggestion that it falls down to specific policy that each candidate is pretending to have an interest in following. Thus, looking at policy only, morals are not a consideration (as far as christians go) and Trump is the best suited for the job. In my opinion.
He still wont win.

I would think that wanting religion and morals IN government would start with not wanting to elect immoral irreligious presidents.

If thats the case then obama should not be there, hillary should not be running, bill should have never been there, actually, I find it hard to think of one religiously moral president since Ive been old enough to vote.

Morality is nothing but a mask bad people put on. Ethics is what we should be demanding from our politicians. Unfortunately our most ethical politicians are at a severe disadvantage in a political system designed to reward the morally deficient who can best fake being honorable.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We should reject the candidate who has precisely no patriotism to the US, who is corrupt, used to getting away with corruption and attacking those who notice, one with no merit, a career of fraud, enabling criminals, and punishing innocent people. We should reject the candidate who never created a single job, and vote for the one who has created a lot of jobs (Trump or Johnson), because we AMERICANS need MORE JOBS.

We should also notice who is a puppet and who is not. Trump is not a puppet. Hillary is, and her puppet master is the worst warmongering liar on the planet - Mr. Netanyahu, the man most responsible for 911.

In short, this election is about the survival of the US. One candidate knows how to balance a budget, one doesn't care and is hell bent on spending us into oblivion (ie Greece). One has achieved in life on his own merit, the other has no personal accomplishments at all. One will re-open the 911 investigation and pursue those who actually did it, the other is completely in bed with those who did it.

Trump and Johnson are far from perfect, but they are miles better than the worst monster to ever receive a major party Prez nomination...

Trump and Johnson are comprehensively unfit to be president – Clinton is in fact qualified to be president.

Had you nominated someone as qualified as Clinton to be president, you might have a point – but you didn’t, and you don’t.

 

[B. Kidd]

If would insinuate that there was a chance he could win.
Wrong use of the word "if"

There are plenty of people on this forum who have consistently believed Trump could win.

The question is, put another way, if Trump's morals don't matter to a Christian conservative or the like,

whose morals do matter?

Considering the left wants religion and its morals out of government, I offer the suggestion that it falls down to specific policy that each candidate is pretending to have an interest in following. Thus, looking at policy only, morals are not a consideration (as far as christians go) and Trump is the best suited for the job. In my opinion.
He still wont win.

I would think that wanting religion and morals IN government would start with not wanting to elect immoral irreligious presidents.

If thats the case then obama should not be there, hillary should not be running, bill should have never been there, actually, I find it hard to think of one religiously moral president since Ive been old enough to vote.

Morality is nothing but a mask bad people put on. Ethics is what we should be demanding from our politicians. Unfortunately our most ethical politicians are at a severe disadvantage in a political system designed to reward the morally deficient who can best fake being honorable.

The main problem is that it cannot be faked anymore. Hereafter, it's gonna get very, very interesting...........

 

[Maryland Patriot]

We should reject the candidate who has precisely no patriotism to the US, who is corrupt, used to getting away with corruption and attacking those who notice, one with no merit, a career of fraud, enabling criminals, and punishing innocent people. We should reject the candidate who never created a single job, and vote for the one who has created a lot of jobs (Trump or Johnson), because we AMERICANS need MORE JOBS.

We should also notice who is a puppet and who is not. Trump is not a puppet. Hillary is, and her puppet master is the worst warmongering liar on the planet - Mr. Netanyahu, the man most responsible for 911.

In short, this election is about the survival of the US. One candidate knows how to balance a budget, one doesn't care and is hell bent on spending us into oblivion (ie Greece). One has achieved in life on his own merit, the other has no personal accomplishments at all. One will re-open the 911 investigation and pursue those who actually did it, the other is completely in bed with those who did it.

Trump and Johnson are far from perfect, but they are miles better than the worst monster to ever receive a major party Prez nomination...

Trump and Johnson are comprehensively unfit to be president – Clinton is in fact qualified to be president.

Had you nominated someone as qualified as Clinton to be president, you might have a point – but you didn’t, and you don’t.

Clinton is not qualified

 

[healthmyths]

We should reject the candidate who has precisely no patriotism to the US, who is corrupt, used to getting away with corruption and attacking those who notice, one with no merit, a career of fraud, enabling criminals, and punishing innocent people. We should reject the candidate who never created a single job, and vote for the one who has created a lot of jobs (Trump or Johnson), because we AMERICANS need MORE JOBS.

We should also notice who is a puppet and who is not. Trump is not a puppet. Hillary is, and her puppet master is the worst warmongering liar on the planet - Mr. Netanyahu, the man most responsible for 911.

In short, this election is about the survival of the US. One candidate knows how to balance a budget, one doesn't care and is hell bent on spending us into oblivion (ie Greece). One has achieved in life on his own merit, the other has no personal accomplishments at all. One will re-open the 911 investigation and pursue those who actually did it, the other is completely in bed with those who did it.

Trump and Johnson are far from perfect, but they are miles better than the worst monster to ever receive a major party Prez nomination...

Trump and Johnson are comprehensively unfit to be president – Clinton is in fact qualified to be president.

Had you nominated someone as qualified as Clinton to be president, you might have a point – but you didn’t, and you don’t.

Let me understand your Clinton qualifications...
1) She blames Benghazi on a video lying to the mother of a dead Benghazi victim.
2) She tells the FBI 40 times she can't remember.
3) She tells her people to take hammers to the government owned electronic devices to smash them.
4) She uses government property to generate 30,000 personal emails which she then destroys.
5) She in the meantime calls the women that have been raped by her husband as immoral?
6) She deducts $1.045 million from her taxes that goes to her foundation that donates $1.8 million to William J. Clinton foundation that donates to a for profit that
pays her husband $16.5 million.... yes that's truly ethically.
7) She calls people like me deplorables.
Should I go on?

 

[healthmyths]

On and also...
8) The language of her NDA suggests it was Clinton’s responsibility to ascertain whether information shared through her private email server was, in fact, classified.
“I understand that it is my responsibility to consult with appropriate management authorities in the Department … in order to ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge or control that I have reason to believe might be SCI,” the agreement says.
According to government security experts, the type of information that receives a TS/SCI designation is sensitive enough that most senior government officials would immediately recognize it as such.
“TS/SCI is very serious and specific information that jumps out at you and screams ‘classified,’” Larry Mrozinski, a former U.S. counterterrorism official, told the New York Post in August. “It’s hard to imagine that in her position she would fail to recognize the obvious.”
Additional emails on Clinton’s server contained information that was “born classified,” according to J. William Leonard, who directed the U.S. Information Security Oversight Office from 2002 to 2008.
Clinton Signed NDA Laying Out Criminal Penalties for Mishandling of Classified Info

So again explain her qualifications that most senior government officials would recognize what SHE DIDN"T???