HuskerNation1

Well I have to counterbalance all the crap spewed on here through the the MSNBC/MSM lenses. By the way, I have stated on here repeatedly that I am not in love with Trump, and will call him out when he acts like a douchebag, which he has in the past week to 10 days. He needs to get his head out of his a*s if he wants to have any chance of winning. With that said, I rarely see those that are inclined to vote for Hillary actually attack her when she screws up, as she did again today lying about lying. We are looking at 2 deeply flawed candidates, and for the past 10 days, Hillary has come across looking better to the average voter, but that can all change in an instant. Trump's words are what get him in trouble, while it's Hillary's words and actions/policies that make her a vulnerable candidate, especially with her failures as SOS and the rise of ISIS under her watch.

It looks like Trump has passed the baton to Hillary in terms of self-inflicted wounds. Today, in her first press conference IN 245 DAYS, she completely lied again to the public about her email woes. Just as she lied to Chris Wallace last weekend. There is a reason Hillary does not do much press as every time she does, she screws up. https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/news/politics/2016/08/05/hillary-clinton-didnt-lie-emails-short-circuited-repeats-lie/ Even Jake Tapper from the Clinton News Network pointed out that Hillary continues to lie about lying.

Trump has had a horrible week and screwed up big time. And it's unfortunate as he has so much material to work with, whether its the anemic GPD growth that came out recently, Hillary continuing to lie about lying, or the ransom our lovely President paid for hostages. In watching his rally tonight, it appears he realizes he needs to get his act together and solidify the GOP base to have any chance of beating Hillary. http://assets.amuniversal.com/3fd4c9b03d4b01349be9005056a9545d

Hey, right here man, do you need something?

There is no need to drag Romney and Rubio down just because Clinton is the most corrupt person to ever run for the White House. It's true that nearly all politicians have flaws and are not completely pure, but Hillary and Trump are in their own league. Romney is one of the most squeaky clean POTUS candidates I have ever seen, and most of my more liberal friends wish he would be in the race as they would vote for him this year over Hillary and Trump. I'd agree. I generally lean Democratic but with the potential scenario of Romney, Kasich, Clinton, and Trump my order would be: 1. Kasich: simply because he seems sensible with regards to comments on the "Iran Deal" and same sex marriage. 2. Romney/Clinton: I put them on the same level because of trade-offs "fiscally" vs. "socially". If Romney played his "social issues" cards right, would probably get my vote. . . . . . . .. . . .. . I don't want to assign an number to Trump because there isn't a number large enough to show how far down the list he is..... My order for those 4 would be: 1. Romney 2. Kasich 3. Trump 4. Hillary Yes, as bad as Trump is, I fear Hillary even more. Hillary has gone so far to the left and has no clue how to deal with terrorism as we are seeing with the world blowing up under her watch (and Obama's). Security and safety is my top issue and she's had her chance to keep the nation safe and failed.

This election is so intriguing in that all 4 candidates running are dependent on each other for their own success. Think about this: 1. Hillary would have no chance of winning the White House if she faced nearly any other GOP candidate running this year other than Trump. It's because the GOP was dumb enough to nominate Trump that Hillary has a slight lead in the polls currently. 2. Trump would have no chance of winning against nearly any sane Democrat, but because it's against Hillary, he's in a statistical dead heat with her. 3. Johnson and Stein would not be increasing their 3rd party percentages if the primary 2 candidates were not so bad. Essentially, all candidates are benefiting from the others weaknesses on a personal level.

There is no need to drag Romney and Rubio down just because Clinton is the most corrupt person to ever run for the White House. It's true that nearly all politicians have flaws and are not completely pure, but Hillary and Trump are in their own league. Romney is one of the most squeaky clean POTUS candidates I have ever seen, and most of my more liberal friends wish he would be in the race as they would vote for him this year over Hillary and Trump.

Have you guys been following this controversy with the Reuters/Ipsos poll. This is a poll that Nate Silver has normally rated pretty high, but when Trump took the lead in this poll during the RNC, it appears that Reuters/Ipsos have changed their polling approach in order to ensure it shows Hillary in the lead. It's rather baffling. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-30/clinton-lead-over-trump-surges-after-reuters-tweaks-poll Even a long-time Democratic strategist believes Reuters is up to no good with the change in their methodology. http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/30/exclusive-pat-caddell-blasts-reuters-back-rigging-polls-to-show-clinton-winning/

It looks like Hillary is back to lying again as she did on the Fox Interview today. When pressed about Comey's statements indicating that Hillary was not telling the truth, she flat out lied to Chris Wallace and claimed "that's not what i heard" and then went into some political talk that made no sense. And when pressed about many voters not trusting her, her only response was "you should ask if voters believe Trump is trustworthy." http://www.mediaite.com/tv/hillary-clinton-battles-chris-wallace-over-emailgate-thats-not-what-i-heard-comey-say/

The irony is that this is what we actually wanted. We just wanted candidates that were competent as well... was that too much to ask? I think this actually plays into one of Trump's strengths that he's not going to let big donors buy his candidacy, and with Hillary already being the Wall Street candidate with big donors, he can continue to paint her as the candidate of special interests. As of a few days ago, Hillary had outspent Trump 50M to something like 6 or 7M, yet they are in a statistical dead heat nationally. In spite of the fact that his campaign was the one trying to meet with the Kochs? What i"m saying is that the outcome of their decision to sit this out he can play/spin as another sign that HIllary is the candidate of big money. She already has Soros and Bloomberg backing her, now Mark Cuban and the Apple CEO are backing her. She's supposed to represent the party that hates the 1%, yet it seems the 1% really want her to win. Any patriotic rational minded decent human being should want her to win if the alternative is trump. Both choices stink, but I think anybody who has a rational mind and doesn't like the current state of affairs in 2016 would want Trump to win if the alternative is Hillary.

Congrats Ben and welcome to Husker Nation!

Well long before Trump entered the political scene, there has been a lot of discussion about Obama being a narcissist, so it's not a new topic despite what you seem to think. First, I don't love Trump and wish he would shut his mouth more times than not. Hillary Clinton is the most beatable Democratic nominee not facing an incumbent since 1968, yet the GOP was dumb enough to nominate Trump. With that said, Trump AND Obama can still meet the many criteria laid out with this disorder while ALSO having a different style or way of going about it.

The irony is that this is what we actually wanted. We just wanted candidates that were competent as well... was that too much to ask? I think this actually plays into one of Trump's strengths that he's not going to let big donors buy his candidacy, and with Hillary already being the Wall Street candidate with big donors, he can continue to paint her as the candidate of special interests. As of a few days ago, Hillary had outspent Trump 50M to something like 6 or 7M, yet they are in a statistical dead heat nationally. In spite of the fact that his campaign was the one trying to meet with the Kochs? What i"m saying is that the outcome of their decision to sit this out he can play/spin as another sign that HIllary is the candidate of big money. She already has Soros and Bloomberg backing her, now Mark Cuban and the Apple CEO are backing her. She's supposed to represent the party that hates the 1%, yet it seems the 1% really want her to win.

The irony is that this is what we actually wanted. We just wanted candidates that were competent as well... was that too much to ask? I think this actually plays into one of Trump's strengths that he's not going to let big donors buy his candidacy, and with Hillary already being the Wall Street candidate with big donors, he can continue to paint her as the candidate of special interests. As of a few days ago, Hillary had outspent Trump 50M to something like 6 or 7M, yet they are in a statistical dead heat nationally.

As I pointed out at the start of this thread, part of Obama's legacy is that he has oversaw the worst economic recovery in the post World War II America. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/07/29/seven-years-later-recovery-remains-the-weakest-of-the-post-world-war-ii-era/ Moreover, he's also the only President in US History to never have 3% growth in any of the quarters in which he was POTUS. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-30/barack-obama-will-be-only-president-history-never-have-year-3-gdp-growth

I definitely agree too that Romney, Rubio, or Kasich would beat Hillary in a landslide. People don't want Hillary, but Trump's negatives have those two nearly even in the RCP average at the moment in a 4-way race. Both parties put their worst possible candidate on the November ballot.

His testimony was similar to Patricia Smiths at the RNC who spoke about her son being killed in the Benghazi attack, and Hillary dismissing that event by blaming a video and stating "what difference does it make." Except that there have been 8 Congressional investigations, none of which have found Clinton culpable. If you want to rail against Congress, go ahead. No one here will argue with that. But I have no idea why Republicans continue to bark up the Benghazi tree. Umm..there were plenty of findings from Benghazi, but the left wants to continue to dismiss them. Plus, Mrs. Smith was also talking about a 1/1 conversation she had with Clinton in which Hillary made it a point to say it was caused by a video despite emails showing she told others it was a terror attack. You dont have any concern with that?

As far as the distinction between the two, there's a helpful link below. The main distinction, as I understand it, is that someone who is narcissistic can still be self-aware and cognizant of the fact that they suffer from narcissism. Someone with NPD is completely incapable of realizing that they are wrong, that they have a disorder, or that there are other legitimate beliefs to hold onto - if they are approached with any kind of information contrary to what they believe, especially about themselves, they see it as a genuine attack. http://psychologia.co/malignant-narcissism/ As far as comparing Obama and Trump, watch the video I posted earlier in the thread and honestly ask yourself if you have ever seen, or if you can ever imagine, Trump having a moment like that. Same goes for you, bnilhome. Instead of linking some conservatively slanted websites that look like they were hosted on Geocities 15 years ago, just watch the video. Obama and Trump are miles apart. While Trump immediately gets nasty or takes opposition towards anyone who isn't on board with him, and has wonderfully given us golden sound bytes such as having never asked God for forgiveness as a supposed Christian, Obama has publicly shown more than a number of times things that he's regretted or wished he'd done better at during his presidency, as well as an appreciation for the people who have helped him along the way. He's no saint or the greatest President ever, but he's shown plenty of self-aware moments that are entirely lacking in Donald Trump. For starters, Obama has been the President for several years, and Im sure hes had a couple of moments in which he's had to admit he was wrong, but that is extremely rare. I dont agree with him on many policies and have seen how he attacks anyone that disagrees with him. As for Trump, I have seen him admit he was wrong on more than one occasion. Go back and watch his interview with Megyn Kelly where they cleared the air and he admitted he went too far on a handful of topics. I also heard Trump say in his RNC acceptance speech that he appreciates the support from evangelicals, and he then stated "frankly I'm not sure I deserve it."

Well if you read them closely, one of the articles went through the specific of the bullets you referenced above and offered detailed examples of how Obama demonstrates those qualities. I'm not disputing that Trump is narcissistic, but I think that is the entire point you created this thread to make that insinuation. I'm just pointing out, as others have as well, that most politicians demonstrate these traits. Trump's ego is huge and he needs to reign it in, and I've been saying that for months.

Interesting find. In looking at all the bullets, I think it could apply to our current POTUS as well as the 2 major party candidates running right now. You're dreaming. Not sure how much I'm dreaming as it appears Obama as a narcissist is a commonly researched subject. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/psychopathy_in_the_white_house.html http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/obama.html

I'm surprised this topic has not been raised on here yet. All the focus regarding Hillary's scandals seem to focus on Benghazi and her private server/email issues. But, there have been confirmed reports by the mainstream media that the Clinton Foundation has conducted some shady deals in the past 7 years. Perhaps this is why Bill and Hillary did not mention the Clinton Foundation ONCE in their convention speeches. Even the Washington Post and NY Times have written about the dealings within the Clinton Foundation and whether they were legal and ethical. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3168&v=td2pyyCau30 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/27/irs-reviewing-clinton-foundation-pay-to-play-claims.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0 http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/26/11-explosive-clinton-cash-facts-mainstream-media-confirm-are-accurate/

I haven't seen as much praise from Trump regarding Putin and Kim (though I'm sure its out there), but his remarks regarding Hussein were taking way out of context. He was arguing that since Saddam was removed, Iraq was destabilized and still presents problems for the US today, and that US interests may be better off with dictators who can keep their countries in check compared to regime change situations like in Egypt, Syria, and Iraq which threatens stability. Now there can be a human rights argument made that dictators that harm their own countries citizens justify the US and its allies from pursuing regime change, but Trump's platform is America first and these types of decisions are viewed through that lens. Trump has actually taken two very strong positions from the left (anti regime change and free trade) that I'm surprised he's not given as much credit for by some of those on here who tend to lean more to the left. As for being a nation of laws, you hit the nail on the head here, and this is one of the reasons why Trump has done so well. We have existing immigration laws on the books that are not being followed, and the problem continues to get worse. The Comey decision regarding Hillary is another prime example of a rigged system where the laws are not being followed. I think there can be arguments made on both sides, but "law and order" is one of the major themes of the Trump campaign, just as "stronger together" seems to be the theme for Hillary.

Whoa-I would seriously not go where you just went as this type of talk will have a member of the FBI stopping by for a visit. I believe they closely monitor those insinuating or making threats against the POTUS or potential POTUSs. Someone else can correct me if I'm wrong about this

For those looking for another candidate to enter the race, it looks like Monica might be an option. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/45/34/2d/45342ddd1188588da3d881763abcadde.jpg

How could anyone possibly say that? Your arguments, topics, and sources are consistently of the highest caliber. Lol...maybe you could learn a think or two about offering up data points to back up your arguments. Unlike some on here, I've been very up front that I lean more Conservative so it's not as though I'm putting on a facade that I'm some Independent who always seems to side with one party 99% of the time as I've seen some on here do. And my request for input from those who do feel truly independent was sincere regarding how they viewed Hillary's speech. I openly will admit that Obama and Bill Clinton are awesome orators even though I 100% disagree with many of their policy views. When I heard Hillary speak, it was hard to listen to from a tone/delivery perspective.