OMG WOW (REDUX)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/trump-campaign-chief-linked-to-secret-kiev-cash-payments-npsg79ccj

[DURHAM D]

1. Should we give Manafort the benefit of the doubt?

Maybe he is a double agent, draws a salary from the Kremlin and the CIA.

[Jarqui]

2. The way this is turning out, David Brock could be paying him .. nt

[DURHAM D]

4. Your slip is showing. nt

[Jarqui]

7. I don't know precisely what you are implying

For clarity, what I'm suggesting is that this sinister clown's behavior is doing the Clinton campaign a real favor - like he's being paid by them - but I'm not suggesting literally that he's being paid by them - I didn't even think of it that way much less see a speck of evidence of anything like that.

[DURHAM D]

8. What happened to your signature line calling

Hillary a liar, etc. and stating that you would never vote for her?

Did the admin remove it?

[Jarqui]

16. Nope. I did.

I didn't notice my sig for months until someone pointed it out yesterday. It's effectively water under the bridge from the primary in terms of something I want to continue to convey. I may have changed my signature but for full disclosure, I have not changed much of my recollection of my opinion on untrustworthiness expressed in that signature. For me, there is ample solid evidence with non right wing sources and no smears to support that opinion. That case for me is long closed as it is with many Dems who find her untrustworthy - like 60% of the country or so per the polls. That's not a smear nor something restricted to right wing talking points - it's a repeatable polling fact.

Now that Bernie has lost, I do not need to beat that drum. Many Dems can overlook that and are. That's their right and their business. For me, it's not a Bernie thing. I supported him but his candidacy is dead. I just can't and probably never will overlook untrustworthiness in a candidate. It's too hypocritical for one who streaked against Nixon, as I did, for being untrustworthy. I cannot ignore that just because the untrustworthy candidate happens to represent the party I have always supported. Values are values for me - they do not just apply to the GOP or when I feel like it.

I would never support the GOP so I was probably going to abstain in the presidential race. I had not decided. I'm not familiar with the lesser candidates and not enthusiastic to go that way. I was disillusioned - felt like I'd been given no good choice under the circumstances. Didn't post much here. Kind of stayed away.

What has changed with me is how severely messed up Donald Trump has turned out to be. I always thought he was a racist buffoon. But my perception of him has grown worse - that he's by far the bigger risk and much more dangerous for the well being of the country and the world. He has to be stopped.

My dislike for nearly everything GOP is also unchanged. I can't stand them. Toleration of my disagreements with them in the 60s grew to disdain that will remain as long as they are what they are.

So what I have in common with many here is doing whatever I can to see that Donald Trump does not get into the White House. And doing whatever I can to help the Dems retake the Senate & House - which I've done all my life. The lower we push Trump, it appears the better the downticket results for the Dems.

I'm being completely honest and forthright as I've always been. Am I going to be delighted with a Hillary Clinton presidency? Nope. I can't lie about that. I still don't trust her and I probably never will. But I'll be sincerely relieved some that she is there instead of Donald Trump. Trump is nuts. Hillary is not nuts. And that too is how I honestly feel. I couldn't say that a few months ago.

I also would not wish insane crap like 2nd amendment people hurting her - quite the opposite having suffered through the Kennedys. I'd be hoping for the best for Dem causes and the country and that she proves me wrong.

With a sick animal like Trump, you cannot let than man get up when he's down like he is right now. You kick him (figuratively) when he's down to keep him down until this election is over and the serious risk is absolutely averted. He's a frightening prospect for president.

Unlike some political candidates, I do not feel the need to lie about where I stand. And I never have on here. As we are expressing our opinions, what would be the point?

About a year ago, I got the boot for saying I thought it was really uphill for Bernie against Hillary - his chances from the polls, his finances & his lack of establishment support had to be very slim. I supported Bernie all the way, spoke honestly, was right ... and I still got the boot - which is more of a shame on this site than anything to do with me. Pretty bizarre first amendment experience.

If that happens here. So be it. I've fought for Democratic causes for more than 50 years. That won't end with a banning. Not compromising on my values because of what party someone belongs to won't end with a banning either. And I'm not going to lie about where I stand or how I feel just so I can post on a forum.

That's the way it is.

[DURHAM D]

17. Let me see if I understand.

You are going to do everything that you can toward Trump not being elected but you will not vote for Hillary.

As for your support of Bernie...you would not have been booted from DU for that. It had to be more than that.

[Jarqui]

18. Against Trump and Johnson (GOP lite), for no one else

though the only one who stands a chance is Hillary.

That's where I stand now. A number of weeks ago, I was very disillusioned and was for no one.

Maybe I'll evolve more though I presently doubt it. I'm comfortable because I have a cause I believe in and can work for: STOP TRUMP and I do not have to go against something I have always valued in a candidate: trustworthiness.

It's a compromise favorable to the Dems that I can look myself in the mirror and accept.

"It had to be more than that."

Absolutely not. One clean, no personal attack, pessimistic post about his chances - even though I was warming up to him (but you couldn't tell that from the post). It was kind of a thinking out loud thought ...

[DURHAM D]

19. The entire "trustworhness" is right wing and media generated

(and sexist) propaganda and lies they have spouted for more than 25 years.

Why are you still buying it? Must go to a another issue with you.

If you say anything about the "emails" then I know that you are not fully advised of the facts and you just want to continue on the untrustworthy path, even though bogus.

[Jarqui]

21. I do not want to re-litigate that.

As a group, we had that debate during the primaries. That debate is over. We have to agree to disagree.

I can assure you that I would not conclude such a thing on right wing media talking points. I do not read or listen to much right wing media - because it's largely garbage (can't stand Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Alex whatever (Jones?), etc) - though I might give them a touch more credit to them in that I would try to fairly evaluate what news facts FOX News, for example, might claim before quickly dismissing it because of the source. FOX News facts are not 100% wrong. A higher percentage of them are wrong relative to others but sometimes, less often, they've been closer to being more accurate. I say that objectively. We do have to listen fairly to what the other side is saying if we're ever going to break the gridlock. Barack Obama maintains that and I agree with him. I know folks around here are trigger happy when it comes to shooting the messenger.

I confirm my own set of facts and from that distill my own thoughts. As Ted Kennedy said about Hillary's overstatements relative to her efforts in his Children's Health Care legislation, for example: "facts are stubborn things". There is a reason 60% of the country thinks Hillary is untrustworthy and it's not merely due to the right wing and their media.

I could list hundreds of articles from neutral or left wing media and hundreds of videos to illustrate how those untrustworthy numbers got so high for Hillary. Left, right and center talked at length about this problem with her. But we've been through that. It's not going to help now. We need to focus on listing all of Donald Trumps lies and why he's untrustworthy - which for a while the media were not calling him on. That's where the fight has to be now.

After Trump loses, we can bicker about this.

[DURHAM D]

22. Yes, the left wing bought into the whole trushworthy thing

from the right. As did many Bernie supporters. It goes to other issues and gives you an excuse to pretend your stinkin' thinkin' is somehow noble.

I have no further interest in you.

[chillfactor]

26. you really are one untrustworthy person....

you do not belong on DU......Free Republic sounds like it would be a better place for you.

[Jarqui]

27. To attack Trump? That's a really smart suggestion.

67% of the country, 37% of Dems in a July 2016 CBS/NY Times (not right wing) poll say Hillary is not honest or trustworthy - that's their opinion - I wasn't asked by that poll. A lot of Dems feel as I do - which doesn't mean they're no longer Dems. If Hillary dumps that 37% of Dems who don't trust her, she loses to Trump. She cannot afford to do that and I don't think this site should either.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-tied-going-into-conventions-cbsnyt-poll/

I doubt many of those Dems post on Free Republic. Join just two brain cells to think about why that might be.

"Untrustworthy"? A life long and loyal Democrat for more than 50 years, who like 37% of Dems and 67% of the country in the above recent, non right wing poll, lacks faith in Clinton's trustworthiness but is strongly against Donald Trump is honest enough to say exactly where I stand, why, how I evolved and what I have consistently said for ages. What's truly untrustworthy is the thinking behind your conclusion.

Hillary violated my trust in her in 2007-2008. Because of what she did as Secretary of State and how she handled herself for Obama, I gave her a clean slate at the beginning of 2015 and started out supporting her - as documented in posts on this site. Then she violated that trust again several times over and pushed me towards Sanders because of it. I think I've been more than reasonable and forgiving with her on this issue. She's crossed the line too often for me and 37% of Dems like me. You and 63% of Dems see it differently. Like most of the 37% of Dems that don't trust her, I'm still overlooking that lack of trust to fight against Donald Trump. So it's not the end of the world. It could be worse.

We have to agree to disagree for now and move on. There are much more important issues to address together that we have in common and are on the same side of - like stopping Donald Trump. After that, I'll be happy to come back and let you try to kick the crap out of me on the trustworthy issue, ok? Whether she is trustworthy or not won't matter much if Trump wins, will it?

[Jarqui]

20. I'd add one provision:

if the race were tight or I thought it would make a little difference in stopping Trump, I'd vote for her. But I would never feel right or good about it. It would be the most difficult vote I'd ever cast. It would upset or bother me.

With him buried in the polls and swirling downwards, I'm getting a reprieve that I won't have to make such a choice. Believe me, I'm grateful for that.

I've thought long and hard about this. It doesn't mean squat to most - or maybe make sense to many. But the principles and values even though they're merely symbolic, mean something to me. They're almost non-negotiable as they were the sorts of uplifting things - for a higher purpose - that got me involved in the first place more than 50 years ago. I'll die feeling this way.

One thing that gave me pause about all of this:
I think more highly of Obama today than when we first elected him. I wish he could be president for decades to come. I was very taken with him and largely not disappointed. Probably my biggest disappointment came when he supported Hillary. It really bothered me - like he'd sold out. But he's a pretty wise man and knows what's going on better than I do. Maybe he realized just how dangerous Trump was. Maybe he and Hillary had really put their differences behind them. I don't know for sure. But having worked so hard for him in 2008 and 2012, we risked losing all that we'd worked for with an asshole like Trump. Something like that is what brought me around some.

After all I've said, you ought to realize I've had a tough time with all these things. They matter. I care. I want to do what is right and I'm struggling to find my way. I don't think there is a whole lot wrong with having that kind of struggle. My head and heart are pretty close to being in the right place.

[oswaldactedalone]

3. With the release of this news

I'm sure the media will turn their full attention to Clinton's emails.

[PatSeg]

5. Exactly

And talk endlessly about why she is considered so untrustworthy.

[RapSoDee]

6. Republicans embrace this scuzz, and turn their back on America

[CajunBlazer]

9. K&R

[nolabear]

10. Is it the "era of tolerance" that keeps people from tarring and feathering Trump?

I mean, for Christ's sake, I can imagine him being ridden out of town on a rail in the 60s, not to mention any time before.

The SLEAZE factor in this campaign is phenomenal, and that doesn't hold a candle to the sheer political danger.

[ananda]

11. Boy, the Russian Connection is looking dirtier ..

.. and more criminal by the day!

[ALBliberal]

12. Remember how Trump randomly isted the Philippines as a terrorist threat?

Just a few days ago?

Just can't believe this is happening. It's like reading the cover of the Enquirer in line at the grocery store.

[Demsrule86]

13. Mannaford should be prosecuted. As for Trump can you spell 'traitor'? nt

[EricMaundry]

14. The traitor faction of the GOP

Apparently the new definition of "patriotism" in the GOP is the same as sedition.

[Fast Walker 52]

15. sounds like treason to me, but unfortunately, the Podesta group is involved with this too

and while it's not run by the same guy as who runs Hillary's campaign, there is a tie. Which I'm sure the GOP will latch onto.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/c01989a47ee5421593ba1b301ec07813/ap-sources-manafort-tied-undisclosed-foreign-lobbying

[Maraya1969]

24. So is this guy a communist?

[sellitman]

25. Hey wait justa minute

Aren't we supposed to be the commies?