To Emily and Randy: I have no hesitancy to acknowledge that both JFK and Clinton were unfaithful and wrong. But apart from their affairs. I can't think of anything else they did that one might characterize as immoral.

There is no moral equivalence between Clinton and JFK on one hand and Trump on the other; one episode of wrong behavior doesn't equate to the many examples of Trump's wrongful behavior. Did you read any of the material I cited?

And once again, note that I have purposely refrained from attacking his job performance. That is irrelevant to my opinion that he is a despicable person, who should not appear to the world as representative of Americans.

Recent revelations about Trump's handling of p**********l documents is likely to start a new round of attacks and defenses, usually ad hominem but almost certainly to rehash his perceived (according to your political view) successes and failures. Defenders will accuse attackers of Trump Derangement Syndrome, and call them "Trump h**ers".

I don't h**e Trump; I despise (feel contempt or deep repugnance for) him. I'll tell you why, and offer the materials I rely on for this opinion so you can judge for yourself. But I want to make it clear from the outset that I am dealing with the person, not the politician, so please don't try to refute me by reciting all the "good" things he did.

One other preliminary point: Trump is well known for rushing to the courts for relief. The fact that apparently he did not do so for the first two occurrences I'm about to discuss gives rise to a pretty strong inference of veracity.

When Trump first became a serious p**********l candidate I wanted to learn more about him, so I went to the internet. Two articles came up that I found significant. You can read them, and related articles, for yourself. Just google "trump bulgari jewelry" and "trump deposition perjury article". Here are brief summaries:

Bulgari: Forbes magazine reports on a history of conspiracy to evade New York tax laws in which Trump was an active participant. He escaped conviction by turning on the Bulgari jewelry company. Go to the web for details of the duration and extent of Trump's involvement, and consider this: why would a rich man like Trump engage in a criminal operation for a relatively small return? Conclusion: Trump is not only a crook, but a cheap one to boot. Inference: if he is willing to engage in one criminal enterprise for a relatively small return, he willing to engage in others. Areas of suspicion: the Trump Foundation; the lawsuit brought by his niece; the current investigations by New York and Georgia.

Deposition: This article appeared in Newsweek. Google will also show several related articles. Cynics often tell us that "all politicians lie", and sadly, they are pretty much right. But how would you like to be in court with your life or liberty on the line and hear a police officer lie? Or be a victim in a civil or criminal case listening to a defendant and his friends lie? I'm a retired trial lawyer, and I have to acknowledge that I've lost cases where I am convinced the other side fabricated testimony. If you have a lawyer, ask him or her about lying witnesses.

If your oath means nothing when a personal interest is at stake, can I rely on you to act in the public interest rather than your own?

As time passed, other incidents came to light. Google "trump central park 5 article", and put it together with Trump (and his father) being sued by the Justice Department in 1973 for discriminating against black rental applicants, his repeal during his presidency of a rule intended to combat historical racial discrimination in housing, and his (in)famous comment on Charleston, about good people on both sides. Even if you're not prepared to infer r****m you must admit a insensitivity to a substantial percentage of our population that is inappropriate to one who is supposed to lead us all.

And the word "inappropriate" brings to mind his attitude towards and conduct with women.

As to his propensity for fraud, we learned that he avoided the prospect of military service because of shin splints, diagnosed by a doctor who was a tenant of his father. Fortunately, they weren't so severe as to keep him from playing golf. Much more serious, however, was the Trump University scandal. For many years I taught law as an adjunct professor (t***slation: minimum paid lecturer) at a law school that focused on law as either a second career or to further a current career. Students paid a lot of money to try to enhance their earning ability, often sacrificing time with their family and common pleasures (movies, dining out) for financial reasons. I developed a lot of respect for my students, which is why I have great sympathy for the Trump University students who were defrauded of both time and money. Trumped coughed up $25 million to settle the lawsuit.

Current fraud problems involve real estate valuations in the context of both loan applications and property tax evaluations. It's fair to assume some court action is on the horizon.

Conclusion: I've given you several examples showing Trump's immorality. I could go on but I've probably exhausted your patience. Suffice it to say that I have a deep repugnance for Trump's conduct as described, and for that reason have nothing but contempt for the man. "Hatred", which is defined as "intense ill will", is insufficient to describe my feelings about him.

Recent revelations about Trump's handling of p**********l documents is likely to start a new round of attacks and defenses, usually ad hominem but almost certainly to rehash his perceived (according to your political view) successes and failures. Defenders will accuse attackers of Trump Derangement Syndrome, and call them "Trump h**ers".

I don't h**e Trump; I despise (feel contempt or deep repugnance for) him. I'll tell you why, and offer the materials I rely on for this opinion so you can judge for yourself. But I want to make it clear from the outset that I am dealing with the person, not the politician, so please don't try to refute me by reciting all the "good" things he did.

One other preliminary point: Trump is well known for rushing to the courts for relief. The fact that apparently he did not do so for the first two occurrences I'm about to discuss gives rise to a pretty strong inference of veracity.

When Trump first became a serious p**********l candidate I wanted to learn more about him, so I went to the internet. Two articles came up that I found significant. You can read them, and related articles, for yourself. Just google "trump bulgari jewelry" and "trump deposition perjury article". Here are brief summaries:

Bulgari: Forbes magazine reports on a history of conspiracy to evade New York tax laws in which Trump was an active participant. He escaped conviction by turning on the Bulgari jewelry company. Go to the web for details of the duration and extent of Trump's involvement, and consider this: why would a rich man like Trump engage in a criminal operation for a relatively small return? Conclusion: Trump is not only a crook, but a cheap one to boot. Inference: if he is willing to engage in one criminal enterprise for a relatively small return, he willing to engage in others. Areas of suspicion: the Trump Foundation; the lawsuit brought by his niece; the current investigations by New York and Georgia.

Deposition: This article appeared in Newsweek. Google will also show several related articles. Cynics often tell us that "all politicians lie", and sadly, they are pretty much right. But how would you like to be in court with your life or liberty on the line and hear a police officer lie? Or be a victim in a civil or criminal case listening to a defendant and his friends lie? I'm a retired trial lawyer, and I have to acknowledge that I've lost cases where I am convinced the other side fabricated testimony. If you have a lawyer, ask him or her about lying witnesses.

If your oath means nothing when a personal interest is at stake, can I rely on you to act in the public interest rather than your own?

As time passed, other incidents came to light. Google "trump central park 5 article", and put it together with Trump (and his father) being sued by the Justice Department in 1973 for discriminating against black rental applicants, his repeal during his presidency of a rule intended to combat historical racial discrimination in housing, and his (in)famous comment on Charleston, about good people on both sides. Even if you're not prepared to infer r****m you must admit a insensitivity to a substantial percentage of our population that is inappropriate to one who is supposed to lead us all.

And the word "inappropriate" brings to mind his attitude towards and conduct with women.

As to his propensity for fraud, we learned that he avoided the prospect of military service because of shin splints, diagnosed by a doctor who was a tenant of his father. Fortunately, they weren't so severe as to keep him from playing golf. Much more serious, however, was the Trump University scandal. For many years I taught law as an adjunct professor (t***slation: minimum paid lecturer) at a law school that focused on law as either a second career or to further a current career. Students paid a lot of money to try to enhance their earning ability, often sacrificing time with their family and common pleasures (movies, dining out) for financial reasons. I developed a lot of respect for my students, which is why I have great sympathy for the Trump University students who were defrauded of both time and money. Trumped coughed up $25 million to settle the lawsuit.

Current fraud problems involve real estate valuations in the context of both loan applications and property tax evaluations. It's fair to assume some court action is on the horizon.

Conclusion: I've given you several examples showing Trump's immorality. I could go on but I've probably exhausted your patience. Suffice it to say that I have a deep repugnance for Trump's conduct as described, and for that reason have nothing but contempt for the man. "Hatred", which is defined as "intense ill will", is insufficient to describe my feelings about him.

Rick, I can understand your not liking a man on moral grounds. I do not care for D. Trump personally. Are you unable to separate his personal morals and ethics from what he did for the country? What he does as a politician?
Do you apply the same high moral standards to President Biden? Did you to Hillary? To President Obama?
If we are only going to elect Presidents that meet our own personal standards, I don't think we will find any. A balance has to be found. And if you can not apply the same standards to both sides, then I have to question YOUR moral standards, YOUR ethics, and YOUR stated opinions.

By John Thompson...

For Trump v**ers who think their v**e was stolen.

Well… cast your mind back to 2016.

Do you remember how nobody really thought that Trump would win?

Remember how Trump himself was actually taken aback by his victory, and that those who dismissed him as a buffoon with no chance of beating Hilary were absolutely stunned when he did just that?

As soon as it was pointed out that Trump had not won the popular v**e, there were cries of derision from Trump supporters who told the Democrats they were poor losers, that they should just get over it and move on, and that they were a bunch of… what was it, now … Snowflakes?

Well, the Democrats did get over it in short order, Hilary made a gracious and timely concession speech and the Obama Administration coordinated a smooth t***sition of power as the rest of the nation, even if disappointed, went about with life as usual.

Then there was 2020.

WHO WAS IT WHO TURNED OUT TO BE THE REAL 'SNOWFLAKES'?

In 2020, the same Trump supporters were not merely as sure their guy would win as the Democrats had been in 2016, they were certain, beyond doubt, that Trump would trounce Biden… that the Republican win would be YUGE … that they would well and truly ‘own the Libtards’.

Except, of course, in the actual halls of power, where it was clear that the 2016 win had been by the skin of the teeth, and that a second term was not guaranteed. In readiness for the real possibility of loss, Trump, and many of his acolytes, began sowing the seeds of doubt by saying that the ONLY way the Dems could win was by stealing the e******n … Polls be damned, the previous e******n results be damned … Trump supporters were the clear, overwhelming majority and only theft of the e******n could alter that.

Then Trump lost.

Clearly, their Dear Leader’s dire prediction had come to pass. Somehow (it was never ever really made clear in what way, exactly), those devious Dems had crookedly bamboozled the nation and fixed it so that the USA would turn into a c*******t country over the next 4 years.

Do they all really believe that though?

The less knowledgeable members of the Trump fan club … the MAGA hats with extremely limited attention spans and abilities to reason… all do. They believe with the fervent certainty of suicide bombers immolating themselves in the name of Allah. Nothing will dislodge that basic article of faith from their tiny little minds.

Evidence? Evidence? Ah…. they didn't need no stinkin’ evidence!

As for the slightly smarter ones. They may largely know in their heart of hearts that the claims are of e******n f***d are bull-s**t but they’ll go along with it and chant the same slogans as the hardcore cult members because… well, they don’t want Trump to not be the loser he turned out to be.

At the top… the politicians and rich donors pulling the Republican Party strings and manipulating the unwashed masses at the base have no illusions whatsoever. They are happy to keep shoveling wh**ever conspiratorial nonsense they can get the MAGA hats to swallow just to keep the money rolling in …