The Lecherous Mad Guard Dog has never mentioned God in the debates, but no matter.
For Trump, the second Presidential Debate with Hillary Clinton was
really no better than the first: fidgeting, interrupting and sniffling, Trump
piled on falsehood after falsehood (see Associated Press' running
critique of the debates) and "throwing as
many attacks against Clinton as
possible." He even wrangled with debate monitors Martha Raddatz and
Anderson Cooper, implying that they were partial to Hillary Clinton. Throughout
the debate, his morality was questioned, not only with the scandal of leaked
tapes and his mysogenist views, but with his handling of the debate. For
- Was it moral to dig up Bill Clinton's past even before the debate? And in such as seemingly vicious way?
Donald Trump unexpectedly appeared live on his Facebook page with women who have accused former President Bill Clinton of rape and unwanted advances. They didn't take questions but repeated some of the claims they made against Clinton years ago.
- Was it moral to lie as much as Trump did during the debate? He
lies so badly that it seems as if he's mocking fact-checkers with lies that
have been exposed months ago (see above).
- Was it moral to be so vengeful?
"If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation," adding that if he were in charge, "you would be in jail." While the campaign has seen numerous incidents of Trump aides suggesting the sort of political retribution more common in banana republics, the specter of one candidate promising the prosecution of the other was unprecedented.
If We Don't Care, You Shouldn't Either
With the Christian Right and today's politics, morals take a back seat to agenda: it goes deeper than the hypocrisy of demonizing Bill Clinton for his affairs. By supporting Trump, the Christian Right has laid bare it's real agenda.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).