The General Election

[HuskerShark]

 

I can't help but get confused when a person says they have no problem voting for Hillary but absolutely won't vote for Trump because he's crooked. That's fine with me if you want to vote for $hillary, but she's got many, many skeletons in her closet too.

 

Trump's crookedness is only one of many reasons I'm not going to vote for him. Hillary is crooked but at least I'm not too worried about her calling a foreign head of state a childish insult, threatening Russia with a nuclear war, or defaulting on the US's debt.

 

 

Give me a break. All those things are extremely over-dramatized fear-mongering statements put out by anti-Trump propagandists. Educate yourself.

 

If Hillary gets elected, she will try to repeal the 2nd amendment and continue the trend of our country getting trampled in foreign relations, trade, etc.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

I can't help but get confused when a person says they have no problem voting for Hillary but absolutely won't vote for Trump because he's crooked. That's fine with me if you want to vote for $hillary, but she's got many, many skeletons in her closet too.

 

Trump's crookedness is only one of many reasons I'm not going to vote for him. Hillary is crooked but at least I'm not too worried about her calling a foreign head of state a childish insult, threatening Russia with a nuclear war, or defaulting on the US's debt.

 

 

Give me a break. All those things are extremely over-dramatized fear-mongering statements put out by anti-Trump propagandists. Educate yourself.

 

If Hillary gets elected, she will try to repeal the 2nd amendment and continue the trend of our country getting trampled in foreign relations, trade, etc.

 

Those two sentences in the same post is comical.

[teachercd]

Which one would you rather sit down and have a drink with? Seems like even that would be a touch choice. They both seem horrible and unlikable.

[HuskerShark]

Which one would you rather sit down and have a drink with? Seems like even that would be a touch choice. They both seem horrible and unlikable.

 

I actually just entered a drawing to attend a fundraising dinner with Trump. I'd love to sit with him and pick his brain for as long as I could.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

I can't help but get confused when a person says they have no problem voting for Hillary but absolutely won't vote for Trump because he's crooked. That's fine with me if you want to vote for $hillary, but she's got many, many skeletons in her closet too.

 

Trump's crookedness is only one of many reasons I'm not going to vote for him. Hillary is crooked but at least I'm not too worried about her calling a foreign head of state a childish insult, threatening Russia with a nuclear war, or defaulting on the US's debt.

 

Oh...come on....let's let the self proclaimed "king of debt" spend us into oblivion and then just default on our debt. He is so good at it....why not just let him?

 

And...remember....other foreign leaders are going to do what he wants simply because.....well.....he will tell them to do it.

 

 

The reality is that both candidates are deeply flawed, and have both made outrageous statements in the past. Clinton's misstatements tend to be covering up for criminal wrongdoings, while Trump's is a result of not having a filter on whatever comes out of his mouth. As I stated earlier, both candidates personal/favorability ratings will be a wash, and it's going to come down to 2 things.

 

1. Who do Americans believe can get results/get things done.

 

2. Do Americans want an outsider or insider for their next POTUS.

 

The mood of the country is very anti-establishment right now, so Trump wins on point 2. On point 1 I think that is a toss up. Trump has a history of getting result in the business world but not the political world. Hillary has lived in the political world for many years, but as Senator and as Secretary of State, her resume is pretty dismal. If she and her team can spin that she's better able to get results than Trump, then maybe she can win Point 1, but I think that will be a wash at best.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

I can't help but get confused when a person says they have no problem voting for Hillary but absolutely won't vote for Trump because he's crooked. That's fine with me if you want to vote for $hillary, but she's got many, many skeletons in her closet too.

 

Trump's crookedness is only one of many reasons I'm not going to vote for him. Hillary is crooked but at least I'm not too worried about her calling a foreign head of state a childish insult, threatening Russia with a nuclear war, or defaulting on the US's debt.

 

Oh...come on....let's let the self proclaimed "king of debt" spend us into oblivion and then just default on our debt. He is so good at it....why not just let him?

 

And...remember....other foreign leaders are going to do what he wants simply because.....well.....he will tell them to do it.

 

 

The reality is that both candidates are deeply flawed, and have both made outrageous statements in the past. Clinton's misstatements tend to be covering up for criminal wrongdoings, while Trump's is a result of not having a filter on whatever comes out of his mouth. As I stated earlier, both candidates personal/favorability ratings will be a wash, and it's going to come down to 2 things.

 

1. Who do Americans believe can get results/get things done.

 

2. Do Americans want an outsider or insider for their next POTUS.

 

The mood of the country is very anti-establishment right now, so Trump wins on point 2. On point 1 I think that is a toss up. Trump has a history of getting result in the business world but not the political world. Hillary has lived in the political world for many years, but as Senator and as Secretary of State, her resume is pretty dismal. If she and her team can spin that she's better able to get results than Trump, then maybe she can win Point 1, but I think that will be a wash at best.

 

Now...how can you say that. She is the one who flew into a war zone under enemy fire and had to duck and run for their lives as they left the plane.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oh....wait.....never mind.

[JJ Husker]

I usually somewhat enjoy participating in some of these political topics. But for the life of me I just cannot get excited or even pretend to support any of the candidates this go round. And I for sure can't come up with a good reason to argue for one over another. They all have numerous downsides and are unfit for office IMO. But you guys go for it, I'm just gonna drink some beer and hope the next 4 don't get as bad as they would appear to be headed. Now get off my lawn.

[darkhorse85]

 

 

 

 

I can't help but get confused when a person says they have no problem voting for Hillary but absolutely won't vote for Trump because he's crooked. That's fine with me if you want to vote for $hillary, but she's got many, many skeletons in her closet too.

 

Trump's crookedness is only one of many reasons I'm not going to vote for him. Hillary is crooked but at least I'm not too worried about her calling a foreign head of state a childish insult, threatening Russia with a nuclear war, or defaulting on the US's debt.

 

Oh...come on....let's let the self proclaimed "king of debt" spend us into oblivion and then just default on our debt. He is so good at it....why not just let him?

 

And...remember....other foreign leaders are going to do what he wants simply because.....well.....he will tell them to do it.

 

 

The reality is that both candidates are deeply flawed, and have both made outrageous statements in the past. Clinton's misstatements tend to be covering up for criminal wrongdoings, while Trump's is a result of not having a filter on whatever comes out of his mouth. As I stated earlier, both candidates personal/favorability ratings will be a wash, and it's going to come down to 2 things.

 

1. Who do Americans believe can get results/get things done.

 

2. Do Americans want an outsider or insider for their next POTUS.

 

The mood of the country is very anti-establishment right now, so Trump wins on point 2. On point 1 I think that is a toss up. Trump has a history of getting result in the business world but not the political world. Hillary has lived in the political world for many years, but as Senator and as Secretary of State, her resume is pretty dismal. If she and her team can spin that she's better able to get results than Trump, then maybe she can win Point 1, but I think that will be a wash at best.

 

Now...how can you say that. She is the one who flew into a war zone under enemy fire and had to duck and run for their lives as they left the plane.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oh....wait.....never mind.

 

 

Wasn't she on the same helicopter as Brian Williams?

[HuskerShark]

 

 

 

I can't help but get confused when a person says they have no problem voting for Hillary but absolutely won't vote for Trump because he's crooked. That's fine with me if you want to vote for $hillary, but she's got many, many skeletons in her closet too.

 

Trump's crookedness is only one of many reasons I'm not going to vote for him. Hillary is crooked but at least I'm not too worried about her calling a foreign head of state a childish insult, threatening Russia with a nuclear war, or defaulting on the US's debt.

 

 

Give me a break. All those things are extremely over-dramatized fear-mongering statements put out by anti-Trump propagandists. Educate yourself.

 

If Hillary gets elected, she will try to repeal the 2nd amendment and continue the trend of our country getting trampled in foreign relations, trade, etc.

 

Those two sentences in the same post is comical.

 

 

Please explain...

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

 

 

 

 

The debates will be where things change...he will make her look like a criminal and get her off her "notes"...that can be a disaster for some people. With that said I still think she wins wth ease...when I say she I am referring to Clinton. Even though we still have no proof if she is a women and no proof if trump is a man .

The people who want to believe Hillary committed a crime already do, I'm guessing Trump's attempts at painting her as a criminal only serve to hurt him.

I don't, not even a little bit. Doubt is powerful. I also think that 3 terms with the same party is very tough historically speaking.

The weird thing with trump is that things that should hurt him, don't. I have never seen anything like it. I think that you are correct in what you said but the guy just seems to get stronger when he attacks people.

I don't think we've ever had (certainly in my lifetime) had a non-politician celebrity run for President. Ross Perot war political, but he wasn't a celebrity either,

A lot of Trump's support is a cult of personality combined with a distaste for current politicians. It's sad, but a lot of people think of him as the super rich, super successful businessman from Celebrity Apprentice. I think that's all the more they care to think it through,

I'm confident eventually the majority of people will realize he's a crooked. clueless a-hole we don't want representing our country.

What would you consider "a quality person to represent our country"?

 

 

I've got no qualms about supporting Clinton this go around. Bernie was interesting, but lacking in a few key departments that couldn't check the boxes for me.

 

She's not anyone's ideal candidate, but I feel very confident she can at the very least run the country without screwing anything major up. Trump already embarrasses me as an American with how he represents our country on the world stage.

 

 

Umm...Hillary was in charge of one department of the federal government (the state department) and botched that big time. The entire middle east blew up under her watch, she messed up Benghazi and has since been lying about what really happened (including to the families), and has also showed she cannot maintain the confidentiality required of being in such a high profile position (with her use of private email/servers). This is just scraping the surface of how incapable she has been at managing one department, and you think she can run the country?

 

 

Can you find me a real, objective report on how she messed up Benghazi? Because I'm guessing you can't. I ranted about it the other day, but personally I'm tired of my tax dollars paying for an ongoing Congressional investigation when we have multiple sources on record saying A) there's nothing there and B) the investigation itself was launched chiefly to hurt Clinton politically.

 

I mean, you're totally fine to have whatever opinion of the Middle East you want. Personally, I'm of the mind it's been a war-torn, conflict-filled region for quite a while, and in spite of Republicans wanting to point the finger at Hillary and Obama, they're not unilaterally responsible. That seems really laughably silly to me, actually.

 

The email thing rubs me as something that that was poor judgment, but not really illegal, or treason, or any of the other explanations I've heard tossed out. Maybe if the NSA had given her the tools she needed to do her job, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I mean, seriously? We have interdepartmental pissing matches such that we can't effectively outfit our chief f---ing diplomat with necessary secure technology? That one actually really annoys me.

 

All these things means I'll have no problem casting a vote for Clinton in the fall.

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

It's my opinion that Trump has spent his entire life focused on advancing his own wealth and power. I'm not saying the Clintons haven't done some of the same, but I at least have tangible evidence that they've tried to help other people too.

 

I'm sure Trump loves America, but to me, his candidacy just represents the next step in his lifelong stroking of his own ego.

So creating thousands of jobs is less admirable than collecting hundreds of millions through a "non-profit" foundation, much of which came from the Middle East? I can't even fathom how you've spun this in your head.

 

And why in America today do people criticize those who care to obtain wealth? There is nothing wrong with that whatsoever.

 

 

Because there's plenty of evidence he has no problems f---ing over whoever is in his way to do so.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

 

I can't help but get confused when a person says they have no problem voting for Hillary but absolutely won't vote for Trump because he's crooked. That's fine with me if you want to vote for $hillary, but she's got many, many skeletons in her closet too.

 

Trump's crookedness is only one of many reasons I'm not going to vote for him. Hillary is crooked but at least I'm not too worried about her calling a foreign head of state a childish insult, threatening Russia with a nuclear war, or defaulting on the US's debt.

 

Oh...come on....let's let the self proclaimed "king of debt" spend us into oblivion and then just default on our debt. He is so good at it....why not just let him?

 

And...remember....other foreign leaders are going to do what he wants simply because.....well.....he will tell them to do it.

 

 

The reality is that both candidates are deeply flawed, and have both made outrageous statements in the past. Clinton's misstatements tend to be covering up for criminal wrongdoings, while Trump's is a result of not having a filter on whatever comes out of his mouth. As I stated earlier, both candidates personal/favorability ratings will be a wash, and it's going to come down to 2 things.

 

1. Who do Americans believe can get results/get things done.

 

2. Do Americans want an outsider or insider for their next POTUS.

 

The mood of the country is very anti-establishment right now, so Trump wins on point 2. On point 1 I think that is a toss up. Trump has a history of getting result in the business world but not the political world. Hillary has lived in the political world for many years, but as Senator and as Secretary of State, her resume is pretty dismal. If she and her team can spin that she's better able to get results than Trump, then maybe she can win Point 1, but I think that will be a wash at best.

 

Now...how can you say that. She is the one who flew into a war zone under enemy fire and had to duck and run for their lives as they left the plane.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oh....wait.....never mind.

 

 

Now that was funny my friend.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The debates will be where things change...he will make her look like a criminal and get her off her "notes"...that can be a disaster for some people. With that said I still think she wins wth ease...when I say she I am referring to Clinton. Even though we still have no proof if she is a women and no proof if trump is a man .

The people who want to believe Hillary committed a crime already do, I'm guessing Trump's attempts at painting her as a criminal only serve to hurt him.

I don't, not even a little bit. Doubt is powerful. I also think that 3 terms with the same party is very tough historically speaking.

The weird thing with trump is that things that should hurt him, don't. I have never seen anything like it. I think that you are correct in what you said but the guy just seems to get stronger when he attacks people.

I don't think we've ever had (certainly in my lifetime) had a non-politician celebrity run for President. Ross Perot war political, but he wasn't a celebrity either,

A lot of Trump's support is a cult of personality combined with a distaste for current politicians. It's sad, but a lot of people think of him as the super rich, super successful businessman from Celebrity Apprentice. I think that's all the more they care to think it through,

I'm confident eventually the majority of people will realize he's a crooked. clueless a-hole we don't want representing our country.

What would you consider "a quality person to represent our country"?

 

 

I've got no qualms about supporting Clinton this go around. Bernie was interesting, but lacking in a few key departments that couldn't check the boxes for me.

 

She's not anyone's ideal candidate, but I feel very confident she can at the very least run the country without screwing anything major up. Trump already embarrasses me as an American with how he represents our country on the world stage.

 

 

Umm...Hillary was in charge of one department of the federal government (the state department) and botched that big time. The entire middle east blew up under her watch, she messed up Benghazi and has since been lying about what really happened (including to the families), and has also showed she cannot maintain the confidentiality required of being in such a high profile position (with her use of private email/servers). This is just scraping the surface of how incapable she has been at managing one department, and you think she can run the country?

 

 

Can you find me a real, objective report on how she messed up Benghazi? Because I'm guessing you can't. I ranted about it the other day, but personally I'm tired of my tax dollars paying for an ongoing Congressional investigation when we have multiple sources on record saying A) there's nothing there and B) the investigation itself was launched chiefly to hurt Clinton politically.

 

I mean, you're totally fine to have whatever opinion of the Middle East you want. Personally, I'm of the mind it's been a war-torn, conflict-filled region for quite a while, and in spite of Republicans wanting to point the finger at Hillary and Obama, they're not unilaterally responsible. That seems really laughably silly to me, actually.

 

The email thing rubs me as something that that was poor judgment, but not really illegal, or treason, or any of the other explanations I've heard tossed out. Maybe if the NSA had given her the tools she needed to do her job, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I mean, seriously? We have interdepartmental pissing matches such that we can't effectively outfit our chief f---ing diplomat with necessary secure technology? That one actually really annoys me.

 

All these things means I'll have no problem casting a vote for Clinton in the fall.

 

 

Wow, there's a whole lot of Clinton defending going on there, including some things that are not defensible. Email evidence has shown that Ambassador Stevens asked for more security and assistance multiple times in the months leading up to the Benghazi attack, and nothing was done by Hillary and her State Department. That alone is a major blunder, but the real issue here is the cover-up following the attack. Again, the emails and testimony from her hearing showed a complete lack of judgment and in my mind, utter incompetence to serve as Secretary of State, by pushing a narrative about the video being the reason for the attack. She told multiple family members as the funeral services that it was a result of a video, and if you are going to ask me whether I believe Hillary Clinton who has a history of lying vs emotional family members, I am going to choose the latter. Why would she tell Chelsea and Susan Rice it was a terrorist attack and then instruct her State Department to tell the families and the American people something different. Whether this was illegal I don't really care as that always seems to be the defense when it comes to the Clintons...are there actions illegal or just immoral and corrupt? Maybe you should take the cloth she used to wipe her server clean and help her wipe her...of wait, I should way that on here.

[QMany]

Blunders have been highlighted during her tenure, does Clinton get some credit for Bin Laden's death?

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The debates will be where things change...he will make her look like a criminal and get her off her "notes"...that can be a disaster for some people. With that said I still think she wins wth ease...when I say she I am referring to Clinton. Even though we still have no proof if she is a women and no proof if trump is a man .

The people who want to believe Hillary committed a crime already do, I'm guessing Trump's attempts at painting her as a criminal only serve to hurt him.

I don't, not even a little bit. Doubt is powerful. I also think that 3 terms with the same party is very tough historically speaking.

The weird thing with trump is that things that should hurt him, don't. I have never seen anything like it. I think that you are correct in what you said but the guy just seems to get stronger when he attacks people.

I don't think we've ever had (certainly in my lifetime) had a non-politician celebrity run for President. Ross Perot war political, but he wasn't a celebrity either,

A lot of Trump's support is a cult of personality combined with a distaste for current politicians. It's sad, but a lot of people think of him as the super rich, super successful businessman from Celebrity Apprentice. I think that's all the more they care to think it through,

I'm confident eventually the majority of people will realize he's a crooked. clueless a-hole we don't want representing our country.

What would you consider "a quality person to represent our country"?

 

 

I've got no qualms about supporting Clinton this go around. Bernie was interesting, but lacking in a few key departments that couldn't check the boxes for me.

 

She's not anyone's ideal candidate, but I feel very confident she can at the very least run the country without screwing anything major up. Trump already embarrasses me as an American with how he represents our country on the world stage.

 

 

Umm...Hillary was in charge of one department of the federal government (the state department) and botched that big time. The entire middle east blew up under her watch, she messed up Benghazi and has since been lying about what really happened (including to the families), and has also showed she cannot maintain the confidentiality required of being in such a high profile position (with her use of private email/servers). This is just scraping the surface of how incapable she has been at managing one department, and you think she can run the country?

 

 

Can you find me a real, objective report on how she messed up Benghazi? Because I'm guessing you can't. I ranted about it the other day, but personally I'm tired of my tax dollars paying for an ongoing Congressional investigation when we have multiple sources on record saying A) there's nothing there and B) the investigation itself was launched chiefly to hurt Clinton politically.

 

I mean, you're totally fine to have whatever opinion of the Middle East you want. Personally, I'm of the mind it's been a war-torn, conflict-filled region for quite a while, and in spite of Republicans wanting to point the finger at Hillary and Obama, they're not unilaterally responsible. That seems really laughably silly to me, actually.

 

The email thing rubs me as something that that was poor judgment, but not really illegal, or treason, or any of the other explanations I've heard tossed out. Maybe if the NSA had given her the tools she needed to do her job, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I mean, seriously? We have interdepartmental pissing matches such that we can't effectively outfit our chief f---ing diplomat with necessary secure technology? That one actually really annoys me.

 

All these things means I'll have no problem casting a vote for Clinton in the fall.

 

 

Wow, there's a whole lot of Clinton defending going on there, including some things that are not defensible. Email evidence has shown that Ambassador Stevens asked for more security and assistance multiple times in the months leading up to the Benghazi attack, and nothing was done by Hillary and her State Department. That alone is a major blunder, but the real issue here is the cover-up following the attack. Again, the emails and testimony from her hearing showed a complete lack of judgment and in my mind, utter incompetence to serve as Secretary of State, by pushing a narrative about the video being the reason for the attack. She told multiple family members as the funeral services that it was a result of a video, and if you are going to ask me whether I believe Hillary Clinton who has a history of lying vs emotional family members, I am going to choose the latter. Why would she tell Chelsea and Susan Rice it was a terrorist attack and then instruct her State Department to tell the families and the American people something different. Whether this was illegal I don't really care as that always seems to be the defense when it comes to the Clintons...are there actions illegal or just immoral and corrupt? Maybe you should take the cloth she used to wipe her server clean and help her wipe her...of wait, I should way that on here.

 

 

Again, I simply asked for actual objective analysis of how exactly she was wrong. Because my recollection was that the House committee on Benghazi grilled her for 11 hours and she sat there and answered questions and left because they had nothing to throw at her. Damned if they didn't try there hardest, but nothing came of it. They couldn't find anything she did wrong.

 

And then there's this:

 

 

"And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's un-trustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened had we not fought and made that happen."

 

I mean, if you believe she's untrustable, that's your prerogative. But that's a pretty telling description of what the Benghazi investigation was designed to do, now isn't it?

 

Top Benghazi counsel and 3 Start former Lt Gen Dana Chipman says nothing more could have been done.

 

Now, again, you can think whatever you want of Clinton. But if it was so cut and dried that she was negligent in her duties, why has nothing come of this? You can say all of those things, I've seen similar sentiments floating around on conservative rags forever. But as of now I'm not inclined to believe them.