Why Trumpers? I am truly baffled

If Trump is still good enough to be a Republican nominee after all that's revealed about him, I'd hate to see a bad one.

Quote: bobbartop

Let's not divide the country in half, let's just separate ONE SINGLE STATE. Go ahead, pick one. Put all the conservatives in that one state, and leave all the "others" in the rest of the states, and the same result. In less than two years, y'all will be starving, and BEGGING to join us in our state. Guaranteed.
.

Oh, I would vote for that. You forget we have the greenies, naturalists and experts of that sort for the natural world survival.

We don't need you at all.

Quote: bobbartop

I saved it on my hard drive and fully intend to frame it.

Here, let me help you with that.

Quote: rxwine

You forget we have the greenies, naturalists and experts of that sort for the natural world survival.

We have those too, right here around Fresno. But we call them farmers.

Quote: bobbartop

We have those too, right here around Fresno. But we call them farmers.

You wouldn't have them for long if you abolished workplace safety regulations, and without food safety regulations, the stuff they grew would kill people. Puts a little dent in your hypothetical nirvana.

By the way, are you aware that the San Joaquin Valley is a major food-producing area only because of some of the biggest government projects in history? Yes sirree Bob--evil no good stinkin' government! (And the projects were created and funded by LIBURRULS!)

Again, human society needs government, or things go to hell pretty quickly. Unless of course, you fantasize about living in the world of Mad Max, in which case, a lack of government means heaven on earth.

I think the liberals have come to the conclusion that conservatives = anarchists.


Hmmmm.......that's like saying all liberals want hand outs from the government.


Joeshlabotnik who sent you here?

Quote: RS

I think the liberals have come to the conclusion that conservatives = anarchists.


Hmmmm.......that's like saying all liberals want hand outs from the government.


Joeshlabotnik who sent you here?

Well, saying "all liberals want" and "all conservatives want" are equally inaccurate generalizations. Most conservatives are sensible, just like most liberals are sensible, and they just disagree on a few points about the scope of government, certain social issues, or certain financial issues. But there is always the lunatic fringe. On one hand you have whack-a-doodle leftist commies who think socks should be illegal and eating meat is worse than abortion; on the other you have white nationalist secessionists who subvert Christian teachings into a panoply of hate-filled bigotry. Both tend to be undereducated and angry about what they perceive as grave injustice. It's just that their focus is different. Orthodoxy and extremism in either direction is no good. Except if you're extreme about math. :)

On this forum I haven't seen any posters evince a militant left attitude. We've seen a few on the militant right, though, no doubt emboldened by the fact that the mainstream GOP candidate is a fringe conservative while the fringe liberal is a 3rd party candidate (Stein). If you want mainstream conservatism, you have to vote for Johnson and simultaneously convince him to let go of his libertarian social policy.

*moving to Canada*

Quote: bobbartop

We have those too, right here around Fresno. But we call them farmers.

Several universities offer agricultural science.

As matter of fact my sister works for the FDA at one. Not textbook learning, but out at sites as well as greenhouses on campus.

But yeah, I'm going to count any hippie organic farmers (peacenik/treehuggers) still left around for our side as well.

So, pick your state!

Quote: rxwine

Several universities offer agricultural science.

As matter of fact my sister works for the FDA at one. Not textbook learning, but out at sites as well as greenhouses on campus.

But yeah, I'm going to count any hippie organic farmers (peacenik/treehuggers) still left around for our side as well.

So, pick your state!

He's forgotten that all the highly-paid, girlie-handed doctors will be on our side too, including his grandkids' pediatrician. And therefore, so will his children -- who presumably aren't so angry at the system that they're willing to abandon their kids' healthcare to support their father's lunatic secessionist plot.

He'll end up with a bunch of geriatric retired pipefitters and lumberjacks sitting around pining for the good ol' days while, one by one, they all drop dead from lack of medical treatment. That'll win the Darwin Award for sure.

Quote: rxwine

Several universities offer agricultural science.

That was the whole idea behind the Land Grant universities. What is a shame is how few people know or take advantage of what they offer. What would be nice would be for the universities to do more outreach to explain to people how to grow more of their own food.

Quote: Cayman012

*moving to Canada*

If you're patient, Canada will move to here. The North American Union will save you the trip and you won't have to spend all your Ameros on gasoline.

Quote: zippyboy May 29 on DT

I think Trump joined the presidential race on a lark, enjoyed saying some nutty things on TV to draw attention to himself during the debates and rallies, and never thought he'd get this far. Now he's stuck. Should he be elected, he'd need to abandon his real estate empire for four years, which he probably never considered before. He also must realize how massively underqualified he is to run this country, so he back-peddles in situations where he spoke too soon (offering to debate a real politician like Sanders, saying "there must be some form of punishment" for women who get abortions, etc). His ego won't allow him to simply back out, so he may do something passively stupid to sabotage his chances before the election, like naming Sarah Palin as his running mate, or pissing off China somehow.

Trump did some really dumb things this week, like accepting a Purple Heart from a veteran saying "I always wanted one of these"; inviting Putin to hack the emails (which came close to treason for some folks); twitter battle with the Muslim parents of a dead vet; announcing that if he loses the election, then the election must be rigged; calling Hilary "the Devil", on and on etc. Hard to tell if I'm reading CNN or The Onion sometimes. Even Obama stated on TV that Trump's temperament and immaturity makes him unfit for the job.

Now it seems it's time to brief Trump regarding classified documents and protocols every candidate gets this close to the election, but officials don't think Trump can keep his mouth closed after gaining that classified information. He'll probably tweet the nuclear launch codes just to brag that he has them.

All the stunts Trump is doing to sabotage his chances is just whipping up the enthusiasm of his fans. Even though his poll numbers are down, I think the government is really getting worried that such an unstable person could win, and will take action should the American people not come to their senses in time. I believe Trump will be impeached a week into his presidency if he actually wins, and we'll have Pence in charge. Pence has publicly said "I'm a Christian first, a father second and a politician third". Can we really have a president who puts this job in THIRD place? Will he be praying for peace in the Mid-East? Will he be taking his Holy Father's guidance over that of his advisors?

This election year isn't boring at least.

Quote: zippyboy

All the stunts Trump is doing to sabotage his chances is just whipping up the enthusiasm of his fans. Even though his poll numbers are down, I think the government is really getting worried that such an unstable person could win, and will take action should the American people not come to their senses in time. I believe Trump will be impeached a week into his presidency if he actually wins, and we'll have Pence in charge. Pence has publicly said "I'm a Christian first, a father second and a politician third". Can we really have a president who puts this job in THIRD place? Will he be praying for peace in the Mid-East? Will he be taking his Holy Father's guidance over that of his advisors?

This election year isn't boring at least.

You're forgetting that the Senate probably will still be controlled by Republicans. I believe that it takes a majority to even initiate impeachment proceedings, and a two-thirds majority to convict. It would never get off the ground.

The government wouldn't "take action" to limit the damage of a Trump presidency, simply because that government is and probably still will be Republican. I can see the military rejecting his authority as commander-in-chief, though.

What bothers me about what Pence said is that he is a Christian first. Do we really want someone who rules according to the medieval teachings of Christianity (love your neighbor, but kill him if he's a heretic)? And consider where being a father goes in his hierarchy. If the church told him to kill his children, would he do it, like those horrid people who withhold medical care from their kids (who sometimes die as a result) because they think the Man in the Sky is telling them to?

I agree totally that this election isn't boring, but I am also reminded of the Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times."

Quote: zippyboy

I believe Trump will be impeached a week into his presidency if he actually wins, and we'll have Pence in charge.

This is the silliest prediction I have heard. If by some unfathomable circumstances Trump wins the election, that would assure that there will also be a Republican majority in the House and Senate. Who will be impeaching him in his first week?

Republicans are not endorsing Trump. They are embarrassed by him. If Trump becomes a liability, he'll have to be removed. Just like corrupt cops are pariahs to the otherwise honest police force, and have to be removed. Like a cancerous tumor so that the body can live on.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

You're forgetting that the Senate probably will still be controlled by Republicans. I believe that it takes a majority to even initiate impeachment proceedings, and a two-thirds majority to convict. It would never get off the ground.

Time to go brush up on the Constitution. The House drafts the articles, not the Senate. But correct in it will never get off the ground.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

Do you have any, y'know, actual EVIDENCE that Clinton is "corrupt"? Any actual EVIDENCE of wrongdoing? Of course not--all you have is your vague feelings. And "power-hungry"? Based on what--that she's running for President? But so is Trump!!! (And so was everyone else who was in the race--Ted Cruz, Bernie, Jeb Bush, etc. Are/were they all "power-hungry"?)

It makes very little difference whether racism is "systematic" or not--it exists regardless. The societal advances from the 60s onward have eliminated much GOVERNMENTAL systematic racism, but has racism disappeared? No freakin' way. There may not be any law that validates racial discrimination, but so what? What you're saying is akin to saying that crime doesn't happen because it's against the law. Your comment about affirmative action shows that you don't understand this.

If you think that Trump's statements about Mexicans and Muslims were logical, then you need a refresher course in logic. They were based on no evidence whatsoever and advocated for policies that aside from being inhumane and against the laws of the United States, were ridiculously impractical. There was a LOT more wrong with what he said than that his wording was bad.

Actually yes I do. And, many on the left agree.

There are countless examples of Clinton corruption. The email scandal where she publicly admitted her fault is one (IE violating the law for convenience). And, before you say it is not a big deal (I do not think it is an end all either), but many people in the military go to jail or get discharged for far smaller scale violations.... So yes that is a case where it is factual that she broke the law. How big of a deal it is, is up for debate.

For another, foreign donors (specifically GCC countries), she has recently promised to stop taking foreign donations after she swears in. But, that is like saying "I will stop taking blood money from this gang after I have enough saved up to do anything that I like". This is a point that many on both sides find problematic about her (ask Bernie fans).

Her covering up allegations of her husbands multiple sexual assaults on various alleged victims (and ensuring they never made it to court).

The fact that she is still with her husband after cheating on her at least once for sure (and if you believe the sexual assault and rape cases, possibly MANY more times), shows she cares more about power than any kind of decency.

I could go on with various issues I have with the Clinton family and the Clinton foundation, but I don't think its necessary.


As for Trump and his statements on Muslims. Yes, Muslims are many times more likely to be a terrorists and/or an informant, or sympathizer. I do not think that mass importing of people from troubled extremist countries will possibly yield any positive results. There is endless evidence (regional surveys) about the vast number of Muslims in Muslim majority countries who have extremist sympathies and/or views that anyone would call backwards (arresting gays, oppressing women, etc...).


Asking for evidence of Clinton Family corruption is like asking for evidence of Trump being egoistical, it is not hard to find. And, everything that I said is backed by countless hard news sources.

Quote: Gandler

The fact that she is still with her husband after cheating on her at least once for sure (and if you believe the sexual assault and rape cases, possibly MANY more times), shows she cares more about power than any kind of decency.

LOL - a woman staying with her philandering husband doesn't "show" anything. It only shows what you want it to show in your mind.

This sentence alone is enough to shun any other valid opinion you may have expressed in this B.S. post.

Quote: ams288

LOL - a woman staying with her philandering husband doesn't "show" anything. It only shows what you want it to show in your mind.

This sentence alone is enough to shun any other valid opinion you may have expressed in this B.S. post.

It shows a lot. She cares more about her status than her husband's loyalty.

And, what is factually incorrect in any of my above statements?

Quote: Gandler

It shows a lot. She cares more about her status than her husband's loyalty.

And, what is factually incorrect in any of my above statements?

You literally didn't provide one "fact."

Quote:

There are countless examples of Clinton corruption. The email scandal where she publicly admitted her fault is one (IE violating the law for convenience). And, before you say it is not a big deal (I do not think it is an end all either), but many people in the military go to jail or get discharged for far smaller scale violations.... So yes that is a case where it is factual that she broke the law. How big of a deal it is, is up for debate.

The FBI director disagrees with your "fact." He said she was careless. But which law did she break?

Quote:

For another, foreign donors (specifically GCC countries), she has recently promised to stop taking foreign donations after she swears in. But, that is like saying "I will stop taking blood money from this gang after I have enough saved up to do anything that I like". This is a point that many on both sides find problematic about her (ask Bernie fans).

I see opinion here, no facts.

Quote:

Her covering up allegations of her husbands multiple sexual assaults on various alleged victims (and ensuring they never made it to court).

This is nonsense. Fact free.

Quote:

The fact that she is still with her husband after cheating on her at least once for sure (and if you believe the sexual assault and rape cases, possibly MANY more times), shows she cares more about power than any kind of decency.

Even worse nonsense.

Quote:

I could go on with various issues I have with the Clinton family and the Clinton foundation, but I don't think its necessary.

Probably is necessary, since no one has yet been able to point to any actual "pay for play."

Quote:

As for Trump and his statements on Muslims. Yes, Muslims are many times more likely to be a terrorists and/or an informant, or sympathizer. I do not think that mass importing of people from troubled extremist countries will possibly yield any positive results. There is endless evidence (regional surveys) about the vast number of Muslims in Muslim majority countries who have extremist sympathies and/or views that anyone would call backwards (arresting gays, oppressing women, etc...).

zzzzz.... has nothing to do with Clinton.

Quote:

Asking for evidence of Clinton Family corruption is like asking for evidence of Trump being egoistical, it is not hard to find. And, everything that I said is backed by countless hard news sources.

I suspect all these "hard news sources" are either Breitbart or Fox News.

Quote: ams288

You literally didn't provide one "fact."



The FBI director disagrees with your "fact." He said she was careless. But which law did she break?



I see opinion here, no facts.



This is nonsense. Fact free.



Even worse nonsense.



Probably is necessary, since no one has yet been able to point to any actual "pay for play."




zzzzz.... has nothing to do with Clinton.




I suspect all these "hard news sources" are either Breitbart or Fox News.

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of the classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” Comey said.
-She broke the law but not intentionally -

There are endless people claiming to have been raped, touched, assaulted, or harassed by Bill Clinton. I could spam the rest of this thread with individual links from various victims, but that is not necessary google Bill Clinton Sexual Assault allegations for yourself...
But, I will be nice a provide a link to the wiki overview page which only contains the more mainstream and "reputable" allegations....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations

And, yeah if somebody is desperate enough to stay with a cheater, then that says a lot about them. Let alone a cheater with many rape allegations.... And, then she goes on to ensure most never reach court.....


And, my Muslim comment was a reply to the person I was originally replying to....

And, I trust Brietbart more than Fox and CNN, I particularly am in love with Milo.


Oh and she takes a lot of money from GCC countries. This is public record. The idea that this is a crazy conspiracy is laughable. But, I will be nice again and show you the finance report.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/11/exclusive-persian-gulf-sheikhs-gave-bill-hillary-100-million/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120097424021905843
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/07/fact-checking-donations-clinton-foundation/
"It’s now possible to look up donation amounts on the Clinton Foundation’s website. Using Trump’s Saudi Arabia example, Saudi Arabia shows up as having given between $10 million and $25 million since the foundation started."


But, let me guess you are going to say none of that information is reputable and Clinton is perfect and has never made a mistake in her life..... I at least have the decent to admit Trump's many flaws. But, the alt-right is generally more open minded than militant leftists.

Quit reading after "I trust Breitbart".

Quote: Steverinos

Quit reading after "I trust Breitbart".

So you read to virtually the end, and instead of rebutting my post, just said I "quit reading".

Sounds like a good leftist to me, that kind of logic goes good with group think and rallies.

I read to the middle. I don't have the time to refute every individual point in your post. But let me summarize:

I'm not going to change your mind about Hillary Clinton and you're not going to change my mind about Donald Trump.

The end.

I will point out that the Clinton Foundation has an A rating on charitywatch.org.

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

What did they give Trump's charity?

I guess I do have the time, lol.

The law clearly states that the individual must have KNOWINGLY sent classified information. Comey decided there was no evidence of this.

So, no, she didn't break the law.

The Republican Party cannot prosecute a case against the Clintons on some make believe perch of moral authority. They nominated a guy with three wives and multiple charges of infidelity. I think one of his wives actually accused him of rape.

Quote: Gandler

It shows a lot. She cares more about her status than her husband's loyalty.

And, what is factually incorrect in any of my above statements?

Well, in your very first sentence, you misused the words "countless" and "corruption." (Not going to try to educate you.)

And while your post went downhill from there, evaluating Clinton's fitness for office based on her husband's infidelity is asinine--it's a desperation tactic Trump has used here and there--and it's also pretty goddamned sexist.

The email flap is over and done with. The Republicans have been trying to find her criminally liable for SOMETHING for two solid years, and they've failed miserably. She was careless and used poor judgment. She admits it.

Of course, no annoying ol' facts could convince you that the fact-challenged diatribe you posted was valid. So I'm not going to bother exploding each and every one of your goofy statements.

Quote: Steverinos

The Republican Party cannot prosecute a case against the Clintons on some make believe perch of moral authority. They nominated a guy with three wives and multiple charges of infidelity. I think one of his wives actually accused him of rape.

I am an atheist, I do not care about Christian morality, or getting divorced. As for the rape allegation against Trump, that is true, but far less than towards Bill..... I do not pretend Trump is perfect, though having multiple wives does not offend me, at least he had the decency to divorce his wives when they knew they were going on seperate paths.

Yes, there is a rape allegation against Trump, I readily admit that. I will even go further and say, Trump is so full of himself that he probably figured any women should want him, and did not know what "no" means. He has major character flaws and is an egotistical maniac.

See, I am perfectly happy to admit Trump's issues. But, you pretend Clinton is 100% perfect and can do no wrong. Trump also had a lot of sucky businesses, and acts like a child.

Quote: Gandler

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of the classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” Comey said.
-She broke the law but not intentionally -

Look, if she had broken the law,.she would now be up on charges.it's baked into the only applicable law that there must be intent to break or circumvent it. So, no, she did not break the law. It doesn't go both ways.

Quote:

There are endless people claiming to have been raped, touched, assaulted, or harassed by Bill Clinton. I could spam the rest of this thread with individual links from various victims, but that is not necessary google Bill Clinton Sexual Assault allegations for yourself...
But, I will be nice a provide a link to the wiki overview page which only contains the more mainstream and "reputable" allegations....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations

I don't have anything to add to the WJC side of this.

Quote:

And, yeah if somebody is desperate enough to stay with a cheater, then that says a lot about them. Let alone a cheater with many rape allegations.... And, then she goes on to ensure most never reach court.....

And, no, this is entirely your opinion, uninformed as are we all, about the inside of anybody's marriage. You have proven nothing, in imposing your own intolerance over their personal choices, except that apparently YOU would have left Bill if you'd been married to him. Whether this is the issue that somehow decides your vote, it's your vote, but as for the rest of us, it's distracting nonsense.

50+ years ago, when their behaviours were being formed, it was unthinkable to get a divorce, but it was not unusual for the man to wander. 40+ years ago, for about a decade or a little more, many people (including.many I knew then) had open marriages, mistresses, casual sex. I'm talking mainstream, in the millions in the US, not a few folks here and there. And then came the 8ps and the religious backlash, and most of it stopped or went underground. But by then the Clintons were in their early 30s, and they were who they are now.

You're not really judging them, because they didn't live in isolation. You're judging an entire generation.and social atmosphere 40 years later. It was what it was.

Quote:

Oh and she takes a lot of money from GCC countries. This is public record. The idea that this is a crazy conspiracy is laughable. But, I will be nice again and show you the finance report.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/11/exclusive-persian-gulf-sheikhs-gave-bill-hillary-100-million/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120097424021905843
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/07/fact-checking-donations-clinton-foundation/
"It’s now possible to look up donation amounts on the Clinton Foundation’s website. Using Trump’s Saudi Arabia example, Saudi Arabia shows up as having given between $10 million and $25 million since the foundation started."


But, let me guess you are going to say none of that information is reputable and Clinton is perfect and has never made a mistake in her life..... I at least have the decent to admit Trump's many flaws. But, the alt-right is generally more open minded than militant leftists.

Who cares whether you "admit" to Trump's flaws? Or if I admit to Hillary's, which she does not claim to be perfect as you suggest, and has acknowledged and apologized for mistakes in the past?

Trump doesn't acknowledge any of his many mistakes, and that's a huge flaw in itself. He goes off on something, lies or provides false info, and never corrects his misunderstandings or acknowledges his errors. That's effing frightening when so much of the presidency requires deft flexibility in real-time events.

Quote: Gandler

I am an atheist, I do not care about Christian morality, or getting divorced. As for the rape allegation against Trump, that is true, but far less than towards Bill..... I do not pretend Trump is perfect, though having multiple wives does not offend me, at least he had the decency to divorce his wives when they knew they were going on seperate paths.

Yes, there is a rape allegation against Trump, I readily admit that. I will even go further and say, Trump is so full of himself that he probably figured any women should want him, and did not know what "no" means. He has major character flaws and is an egotistical maniac.

See, I am perfectly happy to admit Trump's issues. But, you pretend Clinton is 100% perfect and can do no wrong. Trump also had a lot of sucky businesses, and acts like a child.

When has anyone said that Clinton is perfect and can do no wrong? Putting words in the mouths of people you disagree with is a crude tactic that would shame a nine-year-old.

The rape accusations against trump are as irrelevant as discussions of Bill Clinton's infidelity. For what it's worth, I doubt that trump has ever raped a woman, because a) whenever he gets horny, he can go out and buy an eastern European supermodel, and b) he prefers to rape clients and investors.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Look, if she had broken the law,.she would now be up on charges.it's baked into the only applicable law that there must be intent to break or circumvent it. So, no, she did not break the law. It doesn't go both ways.


I don't have anything to add to the WJC side of this.



And, no, this is entirely your opinion, uninformed as are we all, about the inside of anybody's marriage. You have proven nothing, in imposing your own intolerance over their personal choices, except that apparently YOU would have left Bill if you'd been married to him. Whether this is the issue that somehow decides your vote, it's your vote, but as for the rest of us, it's distracting nonsense.

50+ years ago, when their behaviours were being formed, it was unthinkable to get a divorce, but it was not unusual for the man to wander. 40+ years ago, for about a decade or a little more, many people (including.many I knew then) had open marriages, mistresses, casual sex. I'm talking mainstream, in the millions in the US, not a few folks here and there. And then came the 8ps and the religious backlash, and most of it stopped or went underground. But by then the Clintons were in their early 30s, and they were who they are now.

You're not really judging them, because they didn't live in isolation. You're judging an entire generation.and social atmosphere 40 years later. It was what it was.


Who cares whether you "admit" to Trump's flaws? Or if I admit to Hillary's, which she does not claim to be perfect as you suggest, and has acknowledged and apologized for mistakes in the past?

Trump doesn't acknowledge any of his many mistakes, and that's a huge flaw in itself. He goes off on something, lies or provides false info, and never corrects his misunderstandings or acknowledges his errors. That's effing frightening when so much of the presidency requires deft flexibility in real-time events.

Even if you give them the benefit of the the doubt and assume they had an open marriage, and I am a very sexually liberal person obviously, so I have no issue with this. But, even so that does not account for the many sexual assault/harassment allegations (many of which occurred before he was famous, so these were no women trying to get public sympathy). I just turned 26 so I am not from that generation, and I will refrain from judging, but that sounds like a cop out to me, never before have I heard so many feminists want to give an alleged rapist the benefit of the doubt. (I am a part time student, and as such interact with a lot of sexual assault classes and such, and the current theory is "Always Trust the Victim")..... For the record I am not calling you a feminist, this is speaking in generalities because I hear many people on the left dismissing these old rape claims and then in class go on the say "The victim is always right".

And, that last comment was not directed at you, but certain people on this post, that are bending over backwards to defend Clinton on every little wrongdoing. My point was only, I don't like Trump, he was far from my first choice for the GOP nomination (I am a Rand Paul guy), in fact I will probably not vote for him (last election I voted for Johnson, and plan to do so again). But, if I have to choose between Clinton and Trump, Trump is the lesser of two evils. He is a messed up person, but at least he is blunt and open, you know when he says something stupid. To quote Obama during the 2008 Primary, Clinton will "Say Anything and Change Nothing". She is a very traditional politician and wants power more than anything while pretending to care about the little man. Trump is not too different, minus his mannerisms, and transparency is always a good feature even if you do not like what you see.

The emails, she was Sec. of State. There are 17 year old Privates in the Army who get in trouble for messing up email classifications. The fact that you are defending the Sec. of State on such a large scale email mistake (if you assume she was making an innocent mistake) is laughable.
She should (and almost certainly did) know better. She is the type of person who thinks she is above the rules. I have never met her, but I know several who have, and she always gets very aggressive when held to the same standards as everyone else (meaning getting searched when entering certain compounds getting stopped at checkpoints, going through procedural medical evaluations , etc...). Everyone I know who has met her and has been in a position where they are "beneath her" has nothing but negative things to say about her personality (this goes for both sides of the political spectrum). I hear constantly that Bill is the chillest guy in the world and Hillary is the polar opposite.
I have heard enough stories from independent personnel various places about her personality to believe she is not nice at all.

Quote: Gandler

Even if you give them the benefit of the the doubt and assume they had an open marriage, and I am a very sexually liberal person obviously, so I have no issue with this. But, even so that does not account for the many sexual assault/harassment allegations (many of which occurred before he was famous, so these were no women trying to get public sympathy).

Consider your implicit double-standard and how you would react to this issue if Clinton were a man. And then consider that you're more willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt than Clinton on "sexual morality" even though the one presidential candidate that's been accused of sexual misconduct is Trump, not Clinton. Think about that for a minute: Hillary's *husband* cheated on her and that's an inexcusable failing, but Trump *himself* cheated on his wife and you're giving him a pass? Holy cow, how can you possibly handle that level of hypocrisy?

Quote:

The emails, she was Sec. of State. There are 17 year old Privates in the Army who get in trouble for messing up email classifications. The fact that you are defending the Sec. of State on such a large scale email mistake (if you assume she was making an innocent mistake) is laughable.
She should (and almost certainly did) know better. She is the type of person who thinks she is above the rules.

To use that as a yardstick against which to compare her to Trump is absurd to the point of hilarity. Donald Trump routinely flaunts his apathy for "rules." He has willfully committed fraud against his business partners and customers and openly boasted about how he's manipulated the rules to discharge his debts. Worst of all, he has publicly espoused nonsensical government policies that would directly violate the Constitution -- the most important "rules" we have.

Yet you think Hillary is the greater of two evils here? The only way you reach that conclusion is if you're not actually evaluating the candidates on their relative merits based on equivalent criteria and instead based on some hidden, unpublished criteria -- like "she's a woman and I don't vote for women" or "he's a white nationalist and I agree with white nationalism." You're right, Hillary is a woman, and there are a lot of people in the country who won't vote for her simply due to that fact, her qualifications and experience be damned. If you're one of them, that's fine, but let's not pretend you're making a fair comparison. If you're only going to vote for a candidate with a penis, man up and admit it.

Quote: MathExtremist

Consider your implicit double-standard and how you would react to this issue if Clinton were a man. And then consider that you're more willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt than Clinton on "sexual morality" even though the one presidential candidate that's been accused of sexual misconduct is Trump, not Clinton. Think about that for a minute: Hillary's *husband* cheated on her and that's an inexcusable failing, but Trump *himself* cheated on his wife and you're giving him a pass? Holy cow, how can you possibly handle that level of hypocrisy?

To use that as a yardstick against which to compare her to Trump is absurd to the point of hilarity. Donald Trump routinely flaunts his apathy for "rules." He has willfully committed fraud against his business partners and customers and openly boasted about how he's manipulated the rules to discharge his debts. Worst of all, he has publicly espoused nonsensical government policies that would directly violate the Constitution -- the most important "rules" we have.

Yet you think Hillary is the greater of two evils here? The only way you reach that conclusion is if you're not actually evaluating the candidates on their relative merits based on equivalent criteria and instead based on some hidden, unpublished criteria -- like "she's a woman and I don't vote for women" or "he's a white nationalist and I agree with white nationalism." You're right, Hillary is a woman, and there are a lot of people in the country who won't vote for her simply due to that fact, her qualifications and experience be damned. If you're one of them, that's fine, but let's not pretend you're making a fair comparison. If you're only going to vote for a candidate with a penis, man up and admit it.

I already said. Trump cheated and got divorced and gave his ex a lot of money (more than most people could ever dream of). He is not a good person on the personality front to me, I make no secrets about that.

But, you totally elapsed over the sexual assault allegation of both parties...

And, I am not even going to defend myself for not being a sexist.... That is a strawman if I ever saw one.

Quote: Gandler

I already said. Trump cheated and got divorced and gave his ex a lot of money (more than most people could ever dream of). He is not a good person on the personality front to me, I make no secrets about that.

But, you totally elapsed over the sexual assault allegation of both parties...

And, I am not even going to defend myself for not being a sexist.... That is a strawman if I ever saw one.

I gently suggest that you quit while you are (way) behind. You obviously have a hidden agenda, and are trying (with pathetic ineptitude) to force the facts to justify it. Various sexual issues regarding both candidates and their spouses are peripheral issues at best. On the conduct/ethics front, Trump has cheated thousands of people out of hundreds of millions of dollars. Hillary has sent emails. I can certainly see how you can consider the two equivalent :)

Quote: Gandler

I already said. Trump cheated and got divorced and gave his ex a lot of money (more than most people could ever dream of). He is not a good person on the personality front to me, I make no secrets about that.

But, you totally elapsed over the sexual assault allegation of both parties...

Elapsed is the wrong word but I get your gist. But you're wrong about both parties being accused of sexual assault. Nobody's ever accused Hillary Clinton of anything like that (or if I'm wrong, post a link). Donald Trump is a serial philanderer and severally-disloyal husband. Hillary is a cuckqueaned yet loyal wife. How you can equate the two is beyond my comprehension.

Hillary Clinton on women: "Human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights."
Donald Trump on women: "You have to treat 'em like shit."

I again question your assertion that H. Clinton is a loyal wife given the allegations that Webster Hubbell is the father of Chelsea and Bill sterile was at the time of Chelsea's conception.

The only people voting Trump on the issues are white supremacists. Everyone else reduces to "he's not Hillary" or "I have to vote my party."

Quote: Dalex64

I again question your assertion that H. Clinton is a loyal wife given the allegations that Webster Hubbell is the father of Chelsea and Bill sterile was at the time of Chelsea's conception.

Really? I mean, really? This. Is. Crap.

Quote: Dalex64

I again question your assertion that H. Clinton is a loyal wife given the allegations that Webster Hubbell is the father of Chelsea and Bill sterile was at the time of Chelsea's conception.

That pales in comparison to the allegations that Donald Trump isn't the father of any of his children -- he's been sterile ever since the gamma ray accident that gave him his immense rage and orange hair.

Quote: Dalex64

I again question your assertion that H. Clinton is a loyal wife given the allegations that Webster Hubbell is the father of Chelsea and Bill sterile was at the time of Chelsea's conception.

And you believe this? Why do you have so much hatred for Mrs. Clinton?

You must be very afraid that she will destroy your "My America", and take away all of your guns. It would not surprise me that you are one of the "Second Amendment People" in Trump's mind when he suggested violence against Mrs. Clinton.

Quote: 777

And you believe this? Why do you have so much hatred for Mrs. Clinton?

You must be very afraid that she will destroy your "My America", and take away all of your guns. It would not surprise me that you are one of the "Second Amendment People" in Trump's mind when he suggested violence against Mrs. Clinton.

I have dislike for Clinton, but no hatred. You make unwarranted assumptions about me. Unless something unforseen happens, I will be voting for Clinton. I would have voted for Bernie. You really couldn't be much more wrong about my beliefs, and all because I point out something that might be negative that may or may not be true about Clinton?

I find your post to be very insulting. Not against the forum rules kind of insulting, but insulting none the less.

As for the stories about Chelsea's paternity, I have seen an evasive quote from Chelsea which does not deny the assertion, and a quote from Bill Clinton regarding his sterility which I have never seen refuted.

What have you seen? What about you, BeachBumBabs? Have you guys looked up any stories about this yourselves, or are you just dismissing it out of hand?

I don't think it is a big deal at all if it is true. It is their own personal business. I was just pointing out that Clinton may not be a long suffering wife without fault in their marriage.

Show me the denials and refutations from any of the named parties, and I would be likely to believe them and just label this as a hillary- hating conspiracy item.

Quote: Dalex64

I have dislike for Clinton, but no hatred. You make unwarranted assumptions about me. Unless something unforseen happens, I will be voting for Clinton.

I find your post to be very insulting. Not against the forum rules kind of insulting, but insulting none the less.

As for the stories about Chelsea's paternity, I have seen an evasive quote from Chelsea which does not deny the assertion, and a quote from Bill Clinton regarding his sterility which I have never seen refuted.

What have you seen? What about you, BeachBumBabs? Have you guys looked up any stories about this yourselves, or are you just dismissing it out of hand?

I don't think it is a big deal at all if it is true. It is their own personal business. I was just pointing out that Clinton may not be a long suffering wife without fault in their marriage.

Show me the denials and refutations from any of the named parties, and I would be likely to believe them and just label this as a hillary- hating conspiracy item.

Have you ever seen Chelsea Clinton?

She looks exactly like her parents (Bill and Hillary).

I have no idea what you're smoking, but I want some...

Quote: Dalex64

I don't think it is a big deal at all if it is true. It is their own personal business. I was just pointing out that Clinton may not be a long suffering wife without fault in their marriage.

Yet, you are fastening on it like a dog worrying a favorite chew toy.

And you aren't equipped to judge who is or isn't "at fault" in someone else's marriage.

I did not say "at fault" I said "not without fault" which means something different.

Just search Google for this stuff.

This is the sort of thing I am talking about

Quote:

“Hey, Chelsea,” Morrow asked as he approached Chelsea signing books. “Has your mother ever told you you’re the daughter of Webb Hubbell and not Bill Clinton?”

Chelsea said: “I’m so proud to be my parents’ daughter."

Quote:

When asked specifically about the accusation that he was Chelsea Clinton’s biological father, Hubbell responded: “No comment.”

This one, from 1999, is about how Bill used to tell people he was sterile:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/a-case-of-the-mumps/article/11498

I know places like the National Enquirer and right wing blogs go nuts over this stuff and you end up with fake quotes and DNA tests which mean nothing, but the stuff I quoted is legit.

I wish you people who ask what I have been smoking and the like would do your own research to refute these points rather than attacking my character and my motives.

Seen outside a Trump rally here in Washington State. Sums it up nicely.

I've never liked Trump because he always used the words best, excellent, great, terrific, world class, and I found it to be insincere. I'm scared what he can really be capable of doing. Elect him president, you'll feed his ego and god knows what he does. Anything you can think of, it's possible and nobody will come help us. Think atrocities and what would be done if they're done on U.S. soil.

However I see the media saying in unison, don't do this America, and I think to myself, I know who owns you, so maybe I should. They're just the propaganda arm of the billionaires and the multilateral corporations that care nothing of the American people or America. I'm a big believer money in politics and not having a free media are two of the biggest dangers to an American way of life, as we can see the snowball effect.

Hillary would be with them bilderberg, so tough call. I won't know what to do until election day.

Quote: Dalex64

I did not say "at fault" I said "not without fault" which means something different.

Just search Google for this stuff.

This is the sort of thing I am talking about





This one, from 1999, is about how Bill used to tell people he was sterile:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/a-case-of-the-mumps/article/11498

I know places like the National Enquirer and right wing blogs go nuts over this stuff and you end up with fake quotes and DNA tests which mean nothing, but the stuff I quoted is legit.

I wish you people who ask what I have been smoking and the like would do your own research to refute these points rather than attacking my character and my motives.

Why would I waste even a minute of my time researching something that is almost twenty years in the past, is probably apocryphal, and even if true, doesn't have the slightest shred of relevance to anything whatsoever, and even more importantly, who besides you gives a crap? You may indeed be correct, but so bloody what??????

Your character flaws are implied by your obsession with something ridiculously trivial. Your motives, whatever they are, that cause you to chew on this non-issue for so long must be bizarre indeed. Whatever damage was done to you was self-inflicted. Now, if you want to discuss the actual election, per the title of this thread, please feel free. But whether or not the f*** Bill Clinton was sterile in 1999 is not the least bit germane to the discussions at hand. So drop it!

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

Your character flaws are implied by your obsession with something ridiculously trivial.

Is there anyone left on this forum who has not yet been insulted by this endlessly argumentative know-it-all troll?