HuskerNation1

Something I have learned about people like Trump and Hillary. The people around them do tend to like them. Here's why: Those people are the ones they have allowed in to their inner circle. AND, those people tend to be people who are attracted to those type of people. Also, once inside that inner circle, they know how to stroke them(Trump or Hillary) so that they are allowed to stay in that inner circle. That doesn't mean in general they aren't complete jackasses. There isn't one horrendously horrible leader throughout history that didn't have a group of people around him/her that didn't think they were just great. I'm not talking just about an inner circle type of thing. This includes people that have spoken to him behind the scenes but have not been close to him for years. For instance, Ben Carson spoke about how Trump is a different person behind the scenes after he dropped out of the race. Many who have worked with/for Trump have had positive things to say, including Lewandowski who Trump just fired. I'm sure given the number of jobs Trump has created through the number of people he has employed, there are bound to be many disgruntled employees. As for Hillary, I am sure there are those who find her appealing that are close, but I have also seen many reports (including anyone in the secret service that had to work with her) that said she was a known by a 5-letter name, and she can bark to prove it's true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgCP9vOUd1o

Here is a great read that I would recommend for anyone interested in the general election, even those that think Trump is a dope. It comes from his son-in-law who is not a super-partisan guy and has worked for Cory Booker's campaign in the past (who is supposed to be on Hillary's short list). For me this is a common theme I have heard about Trump, that those that know the real guy behind the scenes think he's a great guy, and the more you get to know him the more you will like him. Now most of us will never get to know him so we are simply left with what we see on television and via social media. http://observer.com/2016/07/jared-kushner-the-donald-trump-i-know/

How many Americans have died at the hands of terrorists under Obama compared to Bush? Unless I am mistaken, there were no terror attacks on American soil post 9/11 under Bush. Also, terror attacks abroad post 9/11 under Bush were a far less occurrence than we've seen the past 7 years. http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/over-his-7-years-in-office-obama-has-had-7-major-islamic-terrorist-attacks/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/24/terrorism-deaths-quadruple-obama/ http://www.christianpost.com/news/bush-stopped-domestic-terrorist-attacks-obama-doesnt-opinion-165641/ Sorry, but 9/11 counts towards Bush. You don't get to just ignore it. Here's the respective numbers of U.S. citizen deaths at the hands of terrorism over the last 15 years (2016 withstanding): 2000: 36 2001: 2910 2002: 29 2003: 17 2004: 5 2005: 3 2006: 4 2007: 1 2008: 14 2009: 19 2010: 6 2011: 3 2012: 12 2013: 13 2014: 32 2015: 19 Oh sure, as long as it fits your narrative, why not count the events of 9-11 against Bush. You may choose to ignore that the events of that day were unprecedented and you can also choose to ignore that Bin Laden wouldn't have been around to mastermind it if only Clinton had pulled the trigger when he had the opportunity. smh Spot on JJ...Landlord can't seem to accept that a big part of Obama's legacy will be his failure in fighting terrorism. Most on here with common sense will recognize that 9/11 was a wake up call and the expectations for our federal government to keep our safety at the forefront began then. The bigger reality is that terrorists are striking at a much more frequent pace under Obama, and they are emboldened. A parallel to what Landlord is trying to do would be to attribute all the job losses in 2009 after Obama took office to Obama without offering any context of what he walked into. Similarly, Bush walked into a recession, Enron, and 9/11 in which the economy collapsed significantly and the markets tanked even further, so assessing job lost under his first couple years in office as his fault doesn't make sense without the proper context.

How many Americans have died at the hands of terrorists under Obama compared to Bush? Unless I am mistaken, there were no terror attacks on American soil post 9/11 under Bush. Also, terror attacks abroad post 9/11 under Bush were a far less occurrence than we've seen the past 7 years. http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/over-his-7-years-in-office-obama-has-had-7-major-islamic-terrorist-attacks/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/24/terrorism-deaths-quadruple-obama/ http://www.christianpost.com/news/bush-stopped-domestic-terrorist-attacks-obama-doesnt-opinion-165641/

It looks like we continue to see polling variance, with this latest poll showing Hillary's lead down to one point. This same poll had her up by 6 points just a few weeks ago. https://morningconsult.com/2016/07/05/clinton-trump-nearly-tied-new-survey/

Well if Trump is as smart as he claims to be, he will realize that Newt and Christie would offer the least for him politically. Newt is extremely intelligent and has great political instincts, but is 73. If he were only 60, I think Newt would be a fine choice, but having two candidates over 70 is not a good idea. As for Christie, those Republicans who don't like Trump may dislike Christie even more. Christie would not do anything to unite the party, nor would he do much to help in key swing states. Plus, he's two bombastic like Trump, and I think Trump needs someone more reserved and thoughtful. As for the other players, Sessions is from Alabama and the South and Trump doesn't need that politically. Plus, pardon my language, but just seems like a weenie...lol. Ernst is appealing and offers the female card, but she's too new to the political scene and I would fear another Palin effect. Corker would be an ok pick. Scott Walker would be a great pick but not sure he's interested. Carly Fiorina would be a great pick too but we all know how they feel about each other. and I've already stated that Rubio and Kasich would be good picks but they aren't interested. So with all of that, I really do see Pence as the guy checking the most boxes at this point.

He's not at 15% is he? If he isn't then they won't allow him anywhere near the stage. With both candidates being as bad as they are, I am surprised that he isn't at 15%. He's not at 15% because everyone is saying..."oh...that guy doesn't have a chance....now....what pathetic candidate should I vote for?" Everyone is so caught up in arguing about which of Clintrump is the worst instead of turning around and saying...."ah ha.....there is another option here" I get what you are saying, but it's going to take a much more visible 3rd party figure that has started laying the seeds much earlier to make a difference. Thus, it does feel like a wasted vote knowing Johnson and Stein have no real chance, and when most voters go to the polls, they want to feel like they have the ability to vote for the "winner." Johnson would need to be polling at around 25 to 30% now as we head into convention season in order to be taken as a candidate with a serious chance of winning. It would also require his party to have their convention around the same time as the two major parties in order to be on an equal footing from a coverage perspective. Continuing to push for Johnson is a noble cause, but I just don't see him gaining traction this late in the game to be a viable option to win in November.

I don't think you are going to get your wish. I think a lot of people are just tired of this story that dragged on for 15 months. I don't think there will be much fallout from these recent developments; most opinions, one way or the other, were already made a long time ago. Well I do think the November election will be close, and those people who vote but don't follow politics closely really have not been paying attention closely to this email scandal the past 15 months, and this could have an impact. I also see it driving some additional Bernie supporters away from supporting Clinton and moving those to Trump, Stein, or simply staying home. One other factor at play...the GOP is far from unified behind Trump, and that is a big part of the difference in the polling showing Clinton up by an average of 5 or 6 points. If this results in some disaffected Republicans from agreeing to support Trump, that could also affect the general election. This certainly helps Trump's claims that the system is rigged, and Hillary can now be official image of the rigged political system.

I appreciate the distinction of your point, and I agree with that in general, but you can't act like wrapped inside of that precedent is the reality that if you're rich and powerful you're above the law. This is one of the ugliest realities of our country, and I suppose of the world in general. Yes, I agree that definitely exists. People with more resources tend to get better legal treatment than others. They can afford to lawyer up and fight things fiercely in court, whereas a poorer, less important person could be convicted rather easily. This reality can head of legal action before it ever comes to pass. Obviously Trump is going to push that "above the law" narrative full bore. More likely, outrage at lack of indictment indicates a lot of people don't really understand how the legal system works. There may be a bit of both involved in the end result-- there's some gray area here that's up for interpretation. As to how we arrived at where we are today, people will have to assign blame/credit to different factors based on their own beliefs and opinions. For me, I don't really care. Long ago I identified Clinton as the candidate who best represented my values and future for the country. The other candidate is so laughably bad for me that the email thing becomes a blip in the grand scheme of things. A bad blip, but a blip. I'd never vote for that man, and I'll do what I can to make sure he never takes up the mantle. I guess that about says all I need to know. Unfortunately I'm afraid too many people feel this same way. This country has now officially become the land of the few highly privileged and the home of the well placed. Well that's not really fair. I think Clinton has an infinitely higher probability of fighting to make things better for everyone, particularly the disadvantaged, than Trump. Johnson doesn't have a realistic chance to win. Elections boil down to choices. We don't have the best choices this cycle. But she's the better choice. How can you tell if she telling the truth? You trust her? It's great seeing the video you posted with this one here. She has proven time and again that the words coming out of her mouth cannot be trusted, so how can anyone believe anything she says from this point forward.

Well said. Any average person working in the state department or FBI would have been charged. The fix was definitely in on this. She knowingly broke the rules and allowed hackers access to key information from our government. I can tell you that my company takes information security extremely seriously, and if anyone did what HIllary did they would be fired immediately. It's pathetic, and hopefully the political fallout from this will do HIllary in.

I think if Johhson is allowed on the stage, we also need to have Stein on the stage too. Her numbers will go up with this Hillary decision as some Bernie Supporters will move to Trump, some will still vote for HIllary, but a good number will want a 3rd option that aligns with their leftist beliefs, and that is Stein.

If it's not Rubio or Kasich, which it won't be, I think Pence is the next best choice. He's smart, likeable, understated, and has experience both as the #3 Republican in Congress as well as the Governor of a rust-belt state, and most importantly, he fits the criteria of being able to lead day one should anything happen to Trump. I really think that with both Trump and Hillary being up there in age, they must both pick someone that is not a novice or too youthful, but also someone that is not frankly as old as them either (which rules out Newt for me).

Interesting assessment. I am not quite as harsh of a grader I guess, but here are my rankings: Carter: D- Reagan: A Bush 41: B- Clinton: B+ Bush 43: B- Obama: C- As I've said before, I believe Bill Clinton is scum, but in terms of his job performance, I am giving him the second highest grade behind Reagan. Also, from my perspective, the primary job of the federal government is national security and putting in policies to keep our country safe, and since the world has had the wake-up call to terrorism on 9/11, Bush 43 gets a full grade higher than Obama. In 2 weeks time we have seen ISIS strike in Orlando, Turkey, and Bangladesh, and their movement is growing despite some claiming they have lost territory. They do not fear a US-led coalition to root out terrorism like we had in Bush's term, and they are emboldened and will continue to strike until we have a new leader of the free world that is ready to take them on. The Orlando shooter pledged himself to ISIS, but he did not receive any operational support (at least them I'm aware of) to carry out the attacks, so giving ISIS the full credit is inaccurate. Second, you're making it sound like Bush's War on Terror made terrorists tremble in their boots. His presidency's policies split Afghanistan in two and helped breed a jihadist training ground. And instead of doing what probably should have been done in Afghanistan, he diverted billions of dollars in resources to go to Iraq, a decision that has helped create deep hatred for the U.S. in the Muslim world. Two costly and ineffective wars. Bush holds a substantial amount of culpability for the problems we see in the world today. And there's also the mountain of evidence out there showing Bush's administration basically earmuffed themselves to the concerns of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda prior to 2001. Insinuating or suggesting Bush was a successful international diplomat is in poor taste. As I've said before, 9/11 was a wake-up call for not just the U.S but the entire world. We know that Bill Clinton had a chance to take out Bin Laden in the late 1990s and he chose not to. I don't buy into the Michael Moore conspiracy theories that some on the left like to push. With 9/11 being a wake-up call, most Americans were looking for the POTUS to put in policies to keep our country safe and to take the fight to terrorists abroad. That is exactly what Bush did. We can argue all day about the Iraq war and the intelligence that led Bush and other prominent politicians like Hillary Clinton to vote in favor of going to war, and in hindsight we should not have gone in, but that's what it is...hindsight. Despite the Iraq move, Bush maintained a broad assault on terrorists throughout the middle east, beefed up our intelligence gather tools, and remained strong and steadfast in the fight, and because of that, he kept this country safe. Obama has basically done just the opposite, and has taken a weak approach toward fighting terrorism, and because of his failure to lead the fight abroad, ISIS has grown by 4400% under his watch. These are pure facts. The threat of terrorism is far greater now than when he took office.

Meanwhile, Loretta Lynch just texted Bill to let him know she is taking care of things and that Hillary will not be charged. I'm just kidding, but only slightly about this. How pathetic that she is meeting with the husband of someone her department is actively investigating.

Yeah, I saw the same thing this morning. Did Calvin take his trip to South Bend and fall in love? If not, I honestly think what he does depends on the decisions of Lindsey and Lewis.

Are you really arguing about whether ISIS has grown 3500% or 4400% under Obama's tenure? The point is still the same. Second, I do think it's a 4400% growth as the fighters when from 700 up to 31,500 for a difference of 30,800. It's the 30,800 that you divide by 700 to arrive at 4400%. Try reading my post again. I said it was still a dramatic increase, and I understand the math. That is why it is currently a 3500% increase and decreasing (esitmates have ISIS currently at 25,000). But as others have pointed out, that percentage that you keep throwing around, although currently incorrect, needs to be put into context. I did read your post and I think I posted my additional thoughts in a different reply...my bad. I don't think the context around removal of territory matters when discussing the bottom line result that ISIS has exploded in the last 7 years. It went from being a beaten down terror group in 2008 to one that had a few successes here and there, and when the leader of the free world blinked and took a path of pacification, ISIS became emboldened and began to spread. It's now a movement that has spread across the world with more fighters joining because they have witnessed the successful attacks over the past 7 years. For Obama to be criticized from Dianne Feinstein is telling... http://hotair.com/archives/2015/11/23/feinstein-obamas-policies-are-making-isis-issue-worse-not-better/ I agree that intelligence is key, and after the Orlando attacks most new outlets were reporting that we do not have enough intelligence officials to keep up with all the leads and areas of concern. In my mind the primary job of the federal government is to keep its citizens safe, and I would rather my tax dollars go to beefing up our intelligence than to other initiatives.

IIRC Kasich broke "the pledge" and hasn't endorsed Trump. Yeah, I'm not saying Kasich will get on board, but if I am Trump I would be doing everything in my power to get him to join. Maybe Trump already has, but he doesn't strike me as the type that will beg or make too strong of a push to convince Kasich to join.

It looks like Trump is also meeting with Mike Pence from Indiana. If its between these 3, I would take Pence as he is not as old as Gingrich and not as brash as Christie. But, if Trump really wants to win, he needs to go all out to get Kasich as his VP. Kasich is liked by many swing voters, would help deliver Ohio, and may also help deliver Pennsylvania for Trump.

Interesting assessment. I am not quite as harsh of a grader I guess, but here are my rankings: Carter: D- Reagan: A Bush 41: B- Clinton: B+ Bush 43: B- Obama: C- As I've said before, I believe Bill Clinton is scum, but in terms of his job performance, I am giving him the second highest grade behind Reagan. Also, from my perspective, the primary job of the federal government is national security and putting in policies to keep our country safe, and since the world has had the wake-up call to terrorism on 9/11, Bush 43 gets a full grade higher than Obama. In 2 weeks time we have seen ISIS strike in Orlando, Turkey, and Bangladesh, and their movement is growing despite some claiming they have lost territory. They do not fear a US-led coalition to root out terrorism like we had in Bush's term, and they are emboldened and will continue to strike until we have a new leader of the free world that is ready to take them on.

Agree and then Biden will step forward to take Hillary's place? I wonder what would actually happen if there is an indictment after the nomination and prior to the GE. Can the party 'take back' the nomination, does the VP become the nominee, can the party insert Uncle Joe in Hillary's place without a delegate vote ? Anybody know what would happen? Of course if the indictment occurred prior to the convention, the delegates could still go wt Bernie or insert Joe or someone else. Clearly the Republicans are trying to manipulate this so any indictment comes at the worst time possible for Clinton. But I don't think they can fully manipulate the FBI into doing their wishes, and in general such agencies are supposed to be non-partisan. I also think that if there isn't an indictment by now, there won't be. The final (and NINTH!) Benghazi report was issued amidst zero fanfare last week and nothing came of it. This email kerfluffle, while it makes fun headlines for people who hate Hillary, won't ever lead to criminal allegations. If it did, we'd see similar allegations against Colin Powell & Condi Rice, both of whom admitted they've done the same thing as Clinton. The email thing is this year's Swift Boat. It's a lot of election-year sound & fury, but it'll signify nothing. This is all juicy & fun to discuss, but the reality is no major political brand is going down for something petty like email shenanigans. That isn't the reality we live in. I don't see Hillary's violation of duties as SOS on the same level as the swift boat against Kerry. One pertains specifically to a candidate's recent job performance, while the other is tied to events from the past. The closer and more likely swift boat comparison would be having a very public and visible campaign starting around August or September by the many women Bill abused and tying it to Hillary's role of trying to cover up or defame these women.

I think if we are going to allow more than Trump in the debate stage, it should be Johnson and Stein. Johnson naturally pulls from Trump while Stein will pull from Hillary's base. I don't see either Trump or Hillary being in favor of just one of these 3rd party candidates getting on stage if it will hurt their own chances.

Or focus on how bad someone is (as Obama pointed out his entire first term about Bush), I'm not buying that either. There is no need for any politician to put others down to make themselves appear better. You must be thinking of your generic libtards. Obama generally avoided blaming the Bush administration and quickly established a good ongoing rapport with both George W. and Poppy Bush. It actually drove liberals crazy how Obama refused to go into attack mode. He's gotten a little better at it in his lame duck status. Unlike most recent outgoing Presidents, Obama could be a huge asset to his party in the general election. What are you smoking? Even the most average political observer heard the jokes on late-night shows regarding how Obama spent his entire first term blaming Bush. The Bush's have a rapport with Bill Clinton, but not Obama. I do agree that Obama can help Hillary as she is a terrible candidate.

I think that's a smart choice on her part. The midwest was less favorable to Trump in the primaries and Ben Sasse has been one of the leaders in the #NeverTrump campaign. The 2nd district was also one of the few districts to go from red to blue in the 2014 midterms. Trump is doing the same in Maine where he can win some of the partial electoral votes. Smart for both of them to fight for every EV.

Are you really arguing about whether ISIS has grown 3500% or 4400% under Obama's tenure? The point is still the same. Second, I do think it's a 4400% growth as the fighters when from 700 up to 31,500 for a difference of 30,800. It's the 30,800 that you divide by 700 to arrive at 4400%.

You keep saying this (and pointing out only ISIS growth). Is that just completely forgetting about 9/11? Nobody will ever forget 9/11. That was our wakeup call and really the worlds wake-up call to take terrorism more seriously. After that event, Bush openly stated that keeping our country safe would be the primary focus of his presidency, and it was. Per Obamas CIA director Isis was decimated when Bush left office and has since grown by 4400%. Obamas strategy appears to be completely reactive with a few targeted air strikes like we saw yesterday as a counter measure. We have to be aggressive and relentless and never let up.