Claire McCaskill distances herself from Clinton

Case closed.

When one really doesn’t know the man but undertakes to make judgments about his character based on largely unattributed reports of his enemies that have nothing to do with policy, that tends to draw a response in kind.

Ok, I am an empiricist. Give me one example of where I have criticized his character based on an unattributed report. That is patently false. I have not criticized him for any situation that you would not readily agree is true. So it is time for you to put up or shut up. Prove me false, or apologize.

When a person posts things that can only be reasonably described as hateful, then if the poster is accused of hating based on it, he just brought it on himself.

We don’t know in here or in life generally what people might secretly harbor in their hearts. But when someone expresses hatred, he’s showing either what he really is or what he wants others to think he is.

Besides, there might be a few on here who find it refreshing after reading all the hateful things the Dems hurl at Trump supporters in here. Perhaps in time the ferocity of the left will die down, but it hasn’t yet.

Part of the problem is that you have never defined what you mean by hateful. If I called Trump “crooked Don” is that hateful? If I called him a clown is that hateful? I know he has used those terms towards others in his tweets, so are we to treat him differently than he treats others? I don’t see why.

I don’t see it, when criticism is targeted at policy, there ensues a good debate on the policy and whether or not it will have the desired impact.

eg, I’ve agreed the steel tariffs won’t have a big impact. I speculated they were more about shifting the focus towards trade deficits and helping the GOP during the impending elections.

I’m not going to search all these threads for the sake of your ego. If I found fifty of them, you would just say they evidenced something else. No sale. If you are as virtuous as you say you are, then everybody knows it already. On the other hand, if you aren’t, they know that too.

And nothing is “patently false” unless it is self-demonstrating. That’s not what we have here.

and as to this:

" I have not criticized him for any situation that you would not readily agree is true…" I do not “readily agree”. Not even close.

Evidencing hatred. I have said that many times. But you know that. You just don’t like it.

When a poster says they are going to look at everything impartially and then continuously comes down on the side of Trump, then they are being disingenuous saying that others have brought it on themselves and, in fact, accusing others of hatred as a technique to silence competing points of view.

I don’t think you are accusing anyone of hatred, are you?

You have never defined hatred. Not once.

Are you kidding? If we think he treats others badly, then of course we are.

I’ve seen quite a bit of personal enmity or hatred in the way progs here attack Trump the person rather than policy.

And extend it to Trump supporters as well. Hillary Clinton might be trying the patience of some of the Dems, but her expressions of disdain for others is exactly typical of the party and its partisans. She really is speaking for all of them.

1 Like

You are arguing for a double standard?

That’s possible. I am new here, so maybe they do. I don’t find it nearly as prominent as Ridgerunner is claiming.

Too weird for words. That’s not an argument for a double standard. Think it out some more.

I have not seen anyone make a statement regarding Trump that is worse than Trump’s tweets.

1 Like

Of course not. You’re a Dem yourself. It never seems as bad on the sending side as it does on the receiving side.

I don’t recall Trump ever saying someone else is betraying his current wife. Possibly you can give us the cite.

But whether anyone has or not, it does not excuse the mean-spirited personal attacks against him here on CAF. I do find it at least passingly amusing that you excoriate Trump for his tweets but defend people on here who, you imply, do the same thing.

Let me clarify. I have criticized him on policy matters and there can be a difference of opinion. But when it comes to character, there are three areas where I have criticized him:

  1. He has made a mockery of marriage by being married three times. Do you disagree that he has been married three times?

  2. He is an adulterer. He has readily admitted that regarding Marla Maples, so no dispute there.

  3. He has said obscene things regarding women. There is no disputing what he said. You might think it is morally appropriate, but you cannot dispute he said what he said.

I don’t recall criticizing him for any other character issues. If you dispute any of the above things happening then by all means present your evidence.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.