@MrWhatsItToYa

 What's clear is that you support someone who is bragging about sexually assaulting women,that's right from his mouth.But evidently it's not enough for you to "get another candidate".But you need more proof then the guy admitting it on tape.

So according to you it's a "cop out" to exclude a person who has admitted sexually assaulted women,from being someone I would vote for.You know what,you are right.Maybe I should re-think me tendency to avoid voting for someone after using their personal traits (as you like to call them-like sexually assaulting women),against them.

Pence is a fricken cowardly clown who couldn't even stick up for himself by going against trump,after trump wanted to hang him.Here's an idea,why don't you vote for Pence,he evidently stands for the same things you do.But here's a big test of your allegiance to the cause,how do you feel about other people saying they would want to hang you for the cause,are you cool with that?

Do you think he actually did it?  Or was he just 'talking' and being macho around someone?

Again -- read this very slowly:  he was not candidate I would have supported to start with.  HOWEVER, after seeing how well he did I WOULD have to support him because of that.  BUT if he is convicted of something that would make him nonviable as a candidate then I would NOT support him.

I do not understand how all on the Left have him guilty of every possible crime and any other issue they could think of -- even before he was elected.

What?  How is it a copout if he was convicted of assaulting someone and THAT was your reason for not voting for him.  THAT would be your REASON.  IT is a COPOUT to jump on board with any propaganda from the Media and the LEFT before he even gets in office, let alone found guilty.

THE MAIN problem is the LEFT are NOT able to support their reasons for having failed policies with FACTS; they refuse to consider anyone on the RIGHT because of emotions and NOT policies that work.

No, Pence would not be my guy.  I used him as an example for you -- because you want a good, moral man to support.  But now he is a 'coward'.  So, again you cannot show anything on policy--you got STRAIGHT to emotions, yet again.

Do you take EVERYTHING anyone says as literal or only those on the RIGHT?

Take care of yourself Raider,I don't hate you.I guess I just don't understand some things about you.And no,I don't want to get into those things that I don't understand about you.I'll just some how live with the fact,that I don't understand some things.

This is still the best quote I have seen that apply to nearly all of the Left and the Media and, especially, here in this forum:

Liberals have feelings and emotion. Conservatives have: logic, history, perspective, science, reason, facts, math, principles, ethics, values, dialogue & common sense.

@MrWhatsItToYa

 Again,we've already discussed all these things in other threads.And like I said previously,I'm tired of going around in endless circles with you.

No, we have not-- we have simply rehashed and gone in circles on you hating Trump for personal reasons and emotional reasons.

Nothing of substance have you used to show why you vote FOR Biden and not AGAINST Trump; or why you vote ONLY Democrat.

I think it is because you cannot support your stance with facts or do not understand any of the issues well enough; just go along with the Left talking points.  

@Raiders22

 Ya,it's real macho for a 70 year old to brag about sexually assaulting women,and just so happen to do it in the same manner that his victims said he did it.How many 70 year olds do you know who brag about sexually assaulting women,and would you still support or be friends with them if they did?I guess only if their policies were something you agreed with,right?The fact that you have a person bragging about doing it (whether he really did it or not),should give you an idea on what kind of piece of shit he is.

Again,I voted for Biden so trump wouldn't be elected,I've said it hundreds of times,is that enough substance for you to understand now.

I wouldn't vote republican right now because they have let a conman and a criminal take over their party.The whole Speaker fiasco proves that.

Here how bout this,I don't give a fuck if you think i cannot support my stance or if you think I understand any of the issues.I understand I wouldn't put a admitted rapist in office.

But of course,you think you are the only one smart enough to understand the issues.But somehow can't understand that when someone brags about sexually assaulting women in the same manner the women claimed they were sexually assaulted,it's a pretty good indicator that they did it.

No -- illogic like the unhinged anti-Trump guys -- even elites -- that still believe the Russian hoax nonsense.  Even though everyone in the campaign had their phone tapped and they still cannot find a crime or evidence of collusion, YET some of the LEFT still believe it.

That type of logic and emotions. 

You cannot reason with folks like that -- because reason is not what got them where they are. 

@MrWhatsItToYa

 Again,I voted for Biden so trump wouldn't be elected,I've said it hundreds of times,is that enough substance for you to understand now.

Yessir --this is UNDERSTOOD with all of the anti-Trump guys.

I am asking about BEFORE BIDEN ran.

@MrWhatsItToYa

 Yes we have,I told you I thought Hogan and Kasich would make respectable presidents.

Where?  It was not in this thread?  I have asked a few times here.

You would have voted for Kasich over Clinton and Biden?

Why?

@MrWhatsItToYa

 Ya,it's real macho for a 70 year old to brag

2005 would make him about 59 

@MrWhatsItToYa

Yep, very VERY common in fact.    Of all the scores of voters I know who voted in 2020, the ones who selected Biden *ALL* said they were not voting *FOR* Joe Biden - but rather - they cast their vote *AGAINST* the racist, RICO criminal mob boss/convicted FRAUD/sex-offender who called our fallen troops "losers" and "suckers"  after selling us out to the Russians in Helsinki and launching a trade war with China that started inflation to snowball

Maybe you are thinking Mueller and not Durham? 

This is directly from USATODAY -- which is far from a rightwing source:

Trump was right: 'Russian collusion' was a hoax. Good luck regaining public's trust.

The FBI does not dispute the special counsel's findings, but says it has already taken action and added safeguards in its investigations.

After four years, we finally have the full 316-page report from Justice Department special counsel John Durham, and it’s a damning indictment of some of our country’s leading institutions. 

Durham said the FBI should have never launched an investigation into alleged Russian collusion with Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, given the slim evidence. 

That is a huge win for Trump, who has for years called out his unfair treatment by the FBI – and a media all too willing to find blame in the former president’s actions. 

The investigation into the "collusion" clouded Trump’s entire presidency, and Democrats harnessed the tale to paint Trump as an illegitimate president. 

The real-life implication is that some Trump supporters will see the Durham report as reason to believe the former president’s outrageous claims, including that the 2020 election was "stolen."

Obviously, there was more to the article, but that is the meat of it.

When you have all of that hanging over your head and was proven to not even have been worthy of an investigation based on the scant evidence -- then you can see why some are not so trusting or caring about the other things the Left keeps bringing up.

The article also points out that this same treatment should be applied to Biden.

The folks realize that they have been investigating Trump for anything possible and making up things to rile folks up as they go.

This just makes it all the more amazing the things that Trump was able to accomplish while in office. 

Word. 

I do not recall -- what were your reasons, quite briefly.  I really do not see any.

That is why I say it was emotional.

I am simply pointing out that you were incorrect on the age.  So, now I assume you might be wrong about context and veracity as well.