HuskerNation1

Here is the point you are missing. Hillary knew of Bill's infidelities and abuse of other women and played an active role in smearing these women and/or covering up what happened to protect her political future. So when she attacks Trump for being bad for women, Trump will continue to respond with Hillary's actions that have been bad for women. And we women find Trump's misogynistic and sexist comments and actions far more reprehensible. No contest. So making sexist comments is worse than Bill raping Juanita Brodderick and other women and Hillary smearing these abuse victims? I don't approve of either but think it's no contest that the Clinton's actions were worse than Trump's crazy words. If Bill were running then all those things could be brought up - but to hold a woman acceptable for her husbands past actions (good or bad) are is ridiculous. Hilary "smearing' them is a matter of opinion. For many of you it wouldn't matter what she did or didn't do you'll find a way to tie her to anything and place blame. You are the one that first raised a claim about Ivana's deposition without reading the full facts of the case and what she spoke about in the past year on that topic. I don't love Trump and don't agree with many of his statements, but he has not victimized women in the way the Clintons have. Had Hillary left Bill upon knowing of his ways, then I would actually praise her and hold her in higher regard. Instead, she blamed the victims and the Right Wing Conspiracy while sticking by Bill's side. Multiple women have commented how Hillary tried to smear or silence them, and you think that is acceptable? If this was just a single woman making these claims, I would say its her word against theirs. But given it's multiple victims, and the Clintons have a history of lying, I am going to trust these women over the Clintons. I can say the same for the Bill Cosby situation. When I heard the first story come through, I thought, she must want money or fame. When the second came forward, I started to think different. But when more and more came forward, I no longer believed Cosby. Nope. You should review the content here. I said nothing about Ivanka. My apologies...there were two others that brought up Ivana's name (Ivanka is the daughter). With that said, my point still holds true.

Umm...have you been living under a rock. Hillary knew about all of Bill's affairs and rapes and was central to ensuring it was swept under the rug. http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/21/hillary-clinton-is-no-friend-to-sexual-assault-survivors/ http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/every-clinton-sex-assault-victim/ http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/juanita-broaddrick-hillary-clinton-hid-bills-infidelities/article/2592109 Meanwhile, the "rape" and deposition you are referring true has been proven to be unfounded in Ivana's own words. Here is what she said at the end of 2015. You are trying to diffuse the real tragedy of Bill's abuse of many women with this accusation by a spouse who was preparing to get divorced. Do you really think that Juanita Brodderick and Paula Jones will be coming out to release a similar statement? Update 7/28/15 9:50 AM: Ivana Trump released a statement Tuesday morning to CNN. “I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald. The story is totally without merit. Donald and I are the best of friends and together have raised three children that we love and are very proud of. I have nothing but fondness for Donald and wish him the best of luck on his campaign. Incidentally, I think he would make an incredible president.” Ironically, Ivana says a story based on her own words in a divorce deposition are “totally without merit.” In further irony, Trump is distancing himself from his lawyer. “Mr. Trump speaks for Mr. Trump and nobody but Mr. Trump speaks for him,” a campaign source told CNN. I personally think everyone involved in this...."Bill, HIllary, Trump, Ivana......are really really screwed up people and are extremely out of touch with reality. Good Lord....why don't we just elect one of the Kardashians? Both Bill and Donald are total pieces of sh#t and I for the life of me can't understand why anyone (especially women) would defend their actions. BRB-I would rather be discussing other topics but was responding to a post made earlier on this topic. I find Bill's action and Trumps words indefensible, but I also find Hillary's actions toward these women indefensible too. She is claiming the mantle of being a champion for women's rights, and for years women have been victimized, yet when she had the opportunity to accept what Bill had done and get away from him, she chose otherwise, stuck by his side, and smeared these women. I've stated in other posts in prior weeks that, of all that I have disagreements with Hillary about, this is perhaps what sticks the most.

Here is the point you are missing. Hillary knew of Bill's infidelities and abuse of other women and played an active role in smearing these women and/or covering up what happened to protect her political future. So when she attacks Trump for being bad for women, Trump will continue to respond with Hillary's actions that have been bad for women. And we women find Trump's misogynistic and sexist comments and actions far more reprehensible. No contest. So making sexist comments is worse than Bill raping Juanita Brodderick and other women and Hillary smearing these abuse victims? I don't approve of either but think it's no contest that the Clinton's actions were worse than Trump's crazy words. If Bill were running then all those things could be brought up - but to hold a woman acceptable for her husbands past actions (good or bad) are is ridiculous. Hilary "smearing' them is a matter of opinion. For many of you it wouldn't matter what she did or didn't do you'll find a way to tie her to anything and place blame. You are the one that first raised a claim about Ivana's deposition without reading the full facts of the case and what she spoke about in the past year on that topic. I don't love Trump and don't agree with many of his statements, but he has not victimized women in the way the Clintons have. Had Hillary left Bill upon knowing of his ways, then I would actually praise her and hold her in higher regard. Instead, she blamed the victims and the Right Wing Conspiracy while sticking by Bill's side. Multiple women have commented how Hillary tried to smear or silence them, and you think that is acceptable? If this was just a single woman making these claims, I would say its her word against theirs. But given it's multiple victims, and the Clintons have a history of lying, I am going to trust these women over the Clintons. I can say the same for the Bill Cosby situation. When I heard the first story come through, I thought, she must want money or fame. When the second came forward, I started to think different. But when more and more came forward, I no longer believed Cosby.

Umm...have you been living under a rock. Hillary knew about all of Bill's affairs and rapes and was central to ensuring it was swept under the rug. http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/21/hillary-clinton-is-no-friend-to-sexual-assault-survivors/ http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/every-clinton-sex-assault-victim/ http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/juanita-broaddrick-hillary-clinton-hid-bills-infidelities/article/2592109 Meanwhile, the "rape" and deposition you are referring true has been proven to be unfounded in Ivana's own words. Here is what she said at the end of 2015. You are trying to diffuse the real tragedy of Bill's abuse of many women with this accusation by a spouse who was preparing to get divorced. Do you really think that Juanita Brodderick and Paula Jones will be coming out to release a similar statement? Update 7/28/15 9:50 AM: Ivana Trump released a statement Tuesday morning to CNN. “I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald. The story is totally without merit. Donald and I are the best of friends and together have raised three children that we love and are very proud of. I have nothing but fondness for Donald and wish him the best of luck on his campaign. Incidentally, I think he would make an incredible president.” Ironically, Ivana says a story based on her own words in a divorce deposition are “totally without merit.” In further irony, Trump is distancing himself from his lawyer. “Mr. Trump speaks for Mr. Trump and nobody but Mr. Trump speaks for him,” a campaign source told CNN.

Their goals are to wipeout Israel and Western Societies, and as long as we continue to play defense their success rate in these types of attacks will continue to grow. We need a leader that will be stronger against terrorism and worry less about political correctness. Obama has been weak on terrorism.

Here is the point you are missing. Hillary knew of Bill's infidelities and abuse of other women and played an active role in smearing these women and/or covering up what happened to protect her political future. So when she attacks Trump for being bad for women, Trump will continue to respond with Hillary's actions that have been bad for women. And we women find Trump's misogynistic and sexist comments and actions far more reprehensible. No contest. So making sexist comments is worse than Bill raping Juanita Brodderick and other women and Hillary smearing these abuse victims? I don't approve of either but think it's no contest that the Clinton's actions were worse than Trump's crazy words.

Here is the point you are missing. Hillary knew of Bill's infidelities and abuse of other women and played an active role in smearing these women and/or covering up what happened to protect her political future. So when she attacks Trump for being bad for women, Trump will continue to respond with Hillary's actions that have been bad for women. I think you are missing the point... What point am I missing. Trump brought up Hillary's role in smearing those women IN RESPONSE TO her claim that he's bad for women. He is a counter-puncher and pushes back hard. She can bring up his past infidelities but I don't think that will come across well considering it will bring up her husband's infidelities. So remind me again what your point is other than the fact that this will be an ugly campaign season which is not a surprise to anyone.

Whether he was gay or not, whether he obtained a gun legally or not are all distractions from the core of the issue. ISIS has grown 4400% under President Obama, and it's become a movement in which those right here in the US feel capable and confident in committing these acts. A movement is something that grows as more and more people get on board, and had ISIS been taken seriously 5 or 6 years ago when they were beginning to gain strength, there may not be a movement still underway in 2016.

Here is the point you are missing. Hillary knew of Bill's infidelities and abuse of other women and played an active role in smearing these women and/or covering up what happened to protect her political future. So when she attacks Trump for being bad for women, Trump will continue to respond with Hillary's actions that have been bad for women.

I simply don't see it the same way as you. I've made my point multiple times in this thread, as well as the Republican election thread, and I'd be better off talking to a plant. It's funny what you say, because that's the only form of response I've gotten. No one knows why they think what they think, but they criticize my views because on this board, they're not popular. It's bullsh*t, but whatever. I'm sorry he's not politically correct enough to fit into the narrow little "presidential" box that people expect him to fit into, but that's exactly his appeal to people right off hand. I've spelled out my understanding of his weaknesses, but his strengths far outweigh his weaknesses IMO. Sorry the radical opinions on this board (or however you could categorize it) don't accept that and decide to respond to me in excessively harsh ways. You people are allowed to have your opinions, but I'm tired of being sh*t on for supporting Trump. I (and millions of others in this country) think that people who support Bernie or Hillary are idiots too, so... Not sure what to say to closed-minded, overly PC people... Shark-I wouldn't worry too much about some of the lefties on here. They have the same fear of Trump now that we had of Obama in 2008. We said Obama would expand the size and scope of government, increase government dependence, and make us less safe against terrorism, and unfortunately all of that has come to fruition. The leftists are afraid of the country moving back to a center-right nation and will continue to demonize Trump as much as possible. Now I don't agree with some of Trump's provocative statements, but I know he'll be a thousand times better than Hillary. But that's not it at all. Trump is a loud mouth jackass that has a tenuous grasp of the truth and people can't understand how he's this close to becoming the next POTUS. If Kasich, Johnson, Rubio, or even Bush were the nominee we would be talking about actual issues. We fear Trump becoming the President because he's not qualified for the job. And nearly half the country felt in 2008 a one-term Senator that had no real world job experience was qualified to be out POTUS and these past 7 years have proven he was not ready for the job. Meanwhile, Hillary is a one-term Senator that had no major accomplishments in that role (unless you count voting for the Iraq war an accomplishment) and was one of the worst and most deceptive secretary of states we've ever had. Obama is likely to go down as one of the better presidents in U.S. history, certainly ahead of the last three presidents we had. Better than the likes of Ford and Grant. Obama has been nowhere near perfect, but he has had several objectively good accomplishments. So, this notion that he has proven himself inadequate over the last 7 years is very misleading, and this is coming from a person who didn't even vote for him in '08. I agree with the other posters comments that you must give time before doing a full evaluation of Presidents, but judging by what I have seen these past 7 years, I think Obama will go down as one of the worst we've had in modern times. What "objectively good" accomplishments has he delivered on? I think we are likely to see in the next 5 to 10 years just how bad his approach to foreign policy and terrorism has been. We've already seen 2 homeland attacks in the past 10 months. And CBO projections from his spending are expected to jump drastically in the coming years.

Exactly. Somehow those who feel gun control is the answer to this issue seem to always overlook this reality. Perhaps its because the leaders they look up too (Obama and Hillary) are using the fun control issue to hide from their failures in fighting terrorism. For them its easy to use guns as a scapegoat for their failures. The FBI was tracking the Orlando killer and Hillary and Obama told them to stop as they feared a Muslim backlash.Or maybe it's because we're smart enough and open minded enough to relize that you can not stop them all, but doing something is better than nothing. The status quo is not working. So do you approve of stopping middle eastern migration as well as probing mosques as a way of preventing these situations. That would be doing something.

Exactly. Somehow those who feel gun control is the answer to this issue seem to always overlook this reality. Perhaps its because the leaders they look up too (Obama and Hillary) are using the fun control issue to hide from their failures in fighting terrorism. For them its easy to use guns as a scapegoat for their failures. The FBI was tracking the Orlando killer and Hillary and Obama told them to stop as they feared a Muslim backlash.

I simply don't see it the same way as you. I've made my point multiple times in this thread, as well as the Republican election thread, and I'd be better off talking to a plant. It's funny what you say, because that's the only form of response I've gotten. No one knows why they think what they think, but they criticize my views because on this board, they're not popular. It's bullsh*t, but whatever. I'm sorry he's not politically correct enough to fit into the narrow little "presidential" box that people expect him to fit into, but that's exactly his appeal to people right off hand. I've spelled out my understanding of his weaknesses, but his strengths far outweigh his weaknesses IMO. Sorry the radical opinions on this board (or however you could categorize it) don't accept that and decide to respond to me in excessively harsh ways. You people are allowed to have your opinions, but I'm tired of being sh*t on for supporting Trump. I (and millions of others in this country) think that people who support Bernie or Hillary are idiots too, so... Not sure what to say to closed-minded, overly PC people... Shark-I wouldn't worry too much about some of the lefties on here. They have the same fear of Trump now that we had of Obama in 2008. We said Obama would expand the size and scope of government, increase government dependence, and make us less safe against terrorism, and unfortunately all of that has come to fruition. The leftists are afraid of the country moving back to a center-right nation and will continue to demonize Trump as much as possible. Now I don't agree with some of Trump's provocative statements, but I know he'll be a thousand times better than Hillary. But that's not it at all. Trump is a loud mouth jackass that has a tenuous grasp of the truth and people can't understand how he's this close to becoming the next POTUS. If Kasich, Johnson, Rubio, or even Bush were the nominee we would be talking about actual issues. We fear Trump becoming the President because he's not qualified for the job. And nearly half the country felt in 2008 a one-term Senator that had no real world job experience was qualified to be out POTUS and these past 7 years have proven he was not ready for the job. Meanwhile, Hillary is a one-term Senator that had no major accomplishments in that role (unless you count voting for the Iraq war an accomplishment) and was one of the worst and most deceptive secretary of states we've ever had.

Not only was this guy on the watch list, but Hillary's State Dept asked that the case be stopped and had 67 records deleted that were tied to this case. Unbelievable. This is going to come back to bite Hillary more than her damn server will. http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/orlando-mosque-tied-to-case-hillarys-state-dept-scrubbed/

I simply don't see it the same way as you. I've made my point multiple times in this thread, as well as the Republican election thread, and I'd be better off talking to a plant. It's funny what you say, because that's the only form of response I've gotten. No one knows why they think what they think, but they criticize my views because on this board, they're not popular. It's bullsh*t, but whatever. I'm sorry he's not politically correct enough to fit into the narrow little "presidential" box that people expect him to fit into, but that's exactly his appeal to people right off hand. I've spelled out my understanding of his weaknesses, but his strengths far outweigh his weaknesses IMO. Sorry the radical opinions on this board (or however you could categorize it) don't accept that and decide to respond to me in excessively harsh ways. You people are allowed to have your opinions, but I'm tired of being sh*t on for supporting Trump. I (and millions of others in this country) think that people who support Bernie or Hillary are idiots too, so... Not sure what to say to closed-minded, overly PC people... Shark-I wouldn't worry too much about some of the lefties on here. They have the same fear of Trump now that we had of Obama in 2008. We said Obama would expand the size and scope of government, increase government dependence, and make us less safe against terrorism, and unfortunately all of that has come to fruition. The leftists are afraid of the country moving back to a center-right nation and will continue to demonize Trump as much as possible. Now I don't agree with some of Trump's provocative statements, but I know he'll be a thousand times better than Hillary.

Well its better than it being a lock for Hillary. That would be really sad.

Meanwhile, Trump is tied with Hillary in Pennsylvania, and this is from a Democratic polling group. We could see many states flip if this holds up. I think the Trump team would take the net gain from picking up PA while losing Utah if that were to happen. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_PA_60816.pdf

Except, in fact, what you take as causation is simply correlation. By the same argument, al Quida exploded in size in Iraq under Bush's watch - it had almost NO foothold in the country until Bush destabilized it with a completely unnecessary war that took more than 4000 American lives. What's good for the goose... Where is your data that shows that Al Quada exploded and then began transporting terror to the US and Europe? I have always read that Al Quada grew in power in the 90s under Clinton's watch, Clinton had the opportunity to take him out and did not, and we then had the bombing in Yemen followed by 9/11. When we were on the offense in the War on Terror with Bush we were seeing less terror attacks in the US and worldwide. Does this mean we need to invade Iraq...no, but it does mean we need to be more aggressive in fighting terror. https://www.aei.org/publication/brennan-admits-isis-was-decimated-under-bush-but-has-grown-under-obama-by-as-much-as-4400-percent/ Focus. I spoke of the growth of al-Qaeda in Iraq. As for proof of that... Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 As for Al-Qaeda's birth and growth, you need to go back to the Reagan administration; it was the birth and growth of Al-Qaeda that gave rise to ISIL. Link Well terrorism really began in the late 1970s with Carter, continued with Reagan, but it really accelerated in the 90s. Terrorists will be here always from here on out, but it's our strategy and policy to deal with it that has changed from one POTUS to another. I'm not disputing Al Qaeda was in Iraq. The goal was to take the fight to them where they were and not to have their terrorism further exported to western societies like the US. Since Bush left office, terror attacks like we've seen in Europe and the US has grown, and the point of the article I referenced explained how Hillary and Obama were worried about upsetting Muslims so they stopped pursuing the Orlando terrorist. Are you disagreeing with that?

Except, in fact, what you take as causation is simply correlation. By the same argument, al Quida exploded in size in Iraq under Bush's watch - it had almost NO foothold in the country until Bush destabilized it with a completely unnecessary war that took more than 4000 American lives. What's good for the goose... Where is your data that shows that Al Quada exploded under Bush's watch and then began transporting terror to the US and Europe? I have always read that Al Quada grew in power in the 90s under Clinton's watch, Clinton had the opportunity to take him out and did not, and we then had the bombing in Yemen followed by 9/11. When we were on the offense in the War on Terror with Bush we were seeing less terror attacks in the US and worldwide. Does this mean we need to invade Iraq...no, but it does mean we need to be more aggressive in fighting terror. https://www.aei.org/publication/brennan-admits-isis-was-decimated-under-bush-but-has-grown-under-obama-by-as-much-as-4400-percent/

I actually think its interesting to compare Trump and Hillary to current leaders in college football, and do see some similarities between Trump and Pelini. I think Trump has had more success in his field than Pelini as Nebraska's coach however. I would actually compare Trump to someone like Saban who is had delivered results but can be an ass and believes his views should dominate college football (such as his views on satellite camps). Now for Hillary I've thought about this a lot, and the person that she is most like is Dan Beebe. Just as the Big 12 fell apart under Beebe's watch, the Middle East has fallen apart under her watch, and both are completely clueless when it comes to leadership.

While I don't agree with some of Trump's statements and the timing of his tweet yesterday, he is right that this administration is failing the American people when it comes to fighting terrorism. While everyone is excited that Bin Laden was caught, the fact is that ISIS was decimated when Bush left office (according to Obama's own FBI director), and ISIS has grown by 4400% under Obama's watch. Moreover, it looks like Hillary's State Department asked to have the Orlando terrorists probe stop for fear of alienating the Muslim community. This is what Trump and other GOP candidates continue to talk about...the fact that political correctness is getting in the way of doing what is right. So while Hillary and Obama didn't pull the trigger, their politically correct policies for fighting terror allowed the Orlando gunman to fall off the radar. This will be a huge campaign issue given the tie of their policies to this tragic event. I honestly think that this could be game changer as Trump has had the advantage on economic issues, while Hillary has led on foreign policy and terrorism. This completely undermines her credibility on this issue. It's no surprise she is now willing to say radical islam as she is fearful of the blowback on choosing political correctness over going after the bad guys. http://www.infowars.com/hillarys-state-dept-blocked-investigation-into-orlando-killers-mosque/

Well put, and I totally agree with the bolded part. I also think that violence in our culture plays a huge role and needs to be minimized if possible. Some just like to think a simple gun law will stop this craziness. I'm all for closing loopholes and having thorough backgroudn checks, but it still won't stop many of these situations. Its no different than laws banning or limiting drugs. Does that mean that those people that should not be getting access to drugs will stop pursuing those drugs? Heck no.

This type of attitude doesn't help. Going around and demonizing anyone who owns a gun and blaming them for what happened isn't right. It's not NRA members (as much as I despise what they've become) going around committing these atrocities. In fact most of those "mass shooitngs" you cite were gang/drug related crimes. Over 99.99% gun owners haven't done a thing wrong, yet it's their fault? It's no different than blaming anyone who drinks a beer for all the DUI deaths commited every year. This kind of thinking is how we got the Patriot Act. Literally the next comment after mine. Bolded and enlarged for irony. I'll just keep posting "literally no amount of bloodshed will convince the pro-gun people" every time there's another mass shooting. Because of the irony. And every time, excuses will be made. Every. Single. Time. EDIT - I'll add to this, because of the hysteria of the reply I got: I like guns. I love to shoot, and would love to shoot more. I'm not anti-gun. I'm anti-gun availability. We don't need them, fun as they are. They simply are not necessary for a developed society. What I think is ironic is that the item you bolded could read "No amount of bloodshed or innocent lives lost will convince the pro-abortion people." The pro-choice crowd claims they have a right to kill innocent babies. I would also add that, after every incident of violence, the immediate reply of the liberal left is "gun control, gun control, gun control."

This type of attitude doesn't help. Going around and demonizing anyone who owns a gun and blaming them for what happened isn't right. It's not NRA members (as much as I despise what they've become) going around committing these atrocities. In fact most of those "mass shooitngs" you cite were gang/drug related crimes. Over 99.99% gun owners haven't done a thing wrong, yet it's their fault? It's no different than blaming anyone who drinks a beer for all the DUI deaths commited every year. This kind of thinking is how we got the Patriot Act. You are right Saunders. The immediate reaction is to blame guns and the 2nd amendment as we saw with Obama's reaction after the Oregon shooting in which he came out within 3 hours prior to many families knowing if their loved one was killed, and openly admitted he was politicizing the tragedy. If we want to live in a closed society then perhaps we may see less of this. The rise of these types of shootings is a result of many factors, including broken homes and more kids living without good parents, the rise of violent movies, television, video games, etc..., the rise of the internet age and social media where people can get attention for acts like these.

That's ridiculous. The U.S. has been raining death on 'radical Islam' for a long time, and will continue to do so regardless of who is President. The reason you don't feed into the anti-Islam rhetoric is because this is also a war of ideas. If you truly believe that radicalization is the problem and not Islam, then you fight against that. America has been killing Muslisms for so long that it's awful easy to convince Muslisms that the West is out to get them. ISIS feeds on that. No thanks on giving them an assist. It's not ridiculous. If the President is a smart man, he can easily call out Radical Islam while not referring to all Muslims. These same Islamic terrorists are killing tons of gays in Iran and the middle east as well. In order to beat the enemy, you have to define them and understand what drives them. Like calling them "radical terrorists" that will be eliminated???? It's more than calling them radical terrorists, there needs to be better policies and strategies for taking the fight to ISIS. ISIS is a movement and it continues to grow. The same argument is made by the left suggesting that "gun control" would eliminate these types of events. It won't. The guy had a suicide vest on, and any person willing to kill themselves for the sake of their religion is willing to kill others regardless of whether its a gun, knife, bomb, chemical weapon, or airplane.