The General Election

[mrandyk]

If ever there were a time to vote third party it clearly is this year. Instead the prevailing attitude is "these are our only two choices?". So fed up with the two-party system. You'd think at some point over the years the American people would realize more than two choices would be in their best interest.

 

[teachercd]

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

Only if she hunted him down and shot him.

 

[teachercd]

If ever there were a time to vote third party it clearly is this year. Instead the prevailing attitude is "these are our only two choices?". So fed up with the two-party system. You'd think at some point over the years the American people would realize more than two choices would be in their best interest.

It surprises me too… But even looking over the course of history when you had the whig party, the constitutional party, the free-soilers, the American party which I think was the know nothing party, they really don't stick around very long, had it not been for the Civil War I'm not even sure if the Republican Party would've actually made it. I think there was an American Democrat party to for a while and maybe the American nativists? But I'm not sure on those… But yeah it does surprise me that there hasn't been another party that has stuck around. We're looking at 170 years now with pretty much two parties

 

[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.

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.

The mainstream media seemed to fall in love with the fact that Hillary actually showed up to answer questions, and did little to cover many of the newsworthy items including the reality that she lied about what happened (as I stated previously).



http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/new-benghazi-evidence-proves-hillary-clinton-14060468/

http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/02/yet-more-evidence-that-hillary-clinton-lied-about-benghazi/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEbY_ayO0z4

Now I don't agree with the one GOP congressman that sought political gain from this, but I also don't agree with all the leftist media that ignored the actual news findings from the hearings in order to paint a narrative that Hillary was being smeared. I don't focus on the political propaganda from either side but rather what I am seeing and hearing myself. As for why has nothing come of her negligence, when does anything come of negligence of the Clintons. It's always a "vast right-wing conspiracy" that is causing Bill to question what the word "is" really is, or for Hillary to ask if her server was wiped clean with a cloth.

And here is the best answer I have ever heard from a political candidate when asked will they tell the truth to the American people. Hillary's response..."I will try"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CA0TrS25ss

 

[Danny Bateman]

They're all seeking political gains from this. I agree that there were some cringe-worthy moments in that questioning, but it was an 11-hour session. I'd be shocked if there weren't. From what I've read, the Dems are pissed that this is even still going on, because they appear to believe that there's nothing there. Republicans want to keep interviewing more and more people for their investigation, and to me, that suggests that perhaps they don't have a whole lot of anything.

I'm totally fine that you base your opinion on how you yourself view the situation. That's pretty smart, and it's the same thing we all do. You and I just see the situation differently.

As to your bit about seeking political gains, this ticks me off, because in my minds, they're all seeking political gains from this. This is of course prefaced by my belief that this is a useless investigation at this point. But to me, it appears that they've turned this into a political football, trying to use it to score points, both because it allows them another ongoing weapon with which to bash Clinton, and because they desperately hope to be the ones to finally nail down Clinton.

As to whether or not Clinton has ever lied to the American people-- yeah, probably. I mean, it's an inconvenient truth in politics, but the vast majority of them are liars, or have lied at some point. Every once in a while, it seems like there is someone who comes along like Sanders who seems predisposed to overt honesty, but they're very rare, and Bernie is rife with his own flaws.

I see across the aisle a man that comes out and wantonly lies day after day depending on who's in front of him. He's a spineless worm who hedges his bets and says he'll be "flexible" so that he doesn't have to adopt any firm political stances on anything, and says he'll be "unpredictable" to try to mask, in a very shallow way, that he's an absolutely clueless buffoon on anything of regarding national and world foreign policy. He seems to me to be an opportunist who is willing to hock whatever he thinks the people in front of him want to garner their votes, or, oddly, for an "outsider"-- a consummate politician.

In addition, he is, by my estimation, a bigoted, xenophobic, jingoistic, self-centered, hypersensitive, braggadocious man-child.

I support Clinton because she puts forth a policy platform that best aligns with my own political hopes for our country.

Given the choice between those two, the choice for me is an easy one.

 

[teachercd]

They're all seeking political gains from this. I agree that there were some cringe-worthy moments in that questioning, but it was an 11-hour session. I'd be shocked if there weren't. From what I've read, the Dems are pissed that this is even still going on, because they appear to believe that there's nothing there. Republicans want to keep interviewing more and more people for their investigation, and to me, that suggests that perhaps they don't have a whole lot of anything.

I'm totally fine that you base your opinion on how you yourself view the situation. That's pretty smart, and it's the same thing we all do. You and I just see the situation differently.

As to your bit about seeking political gains, this ticks me off, because in my minds, they're all seeking political gains from this. This is of course prefaced by my belief that this is a useless investigation at this point. But to me, it appears that they've turned this into a political football, trying to use it to score points, both because it allows them another ongoing weapon with which to bash Clinton with, and because they desperately hope to be the ones to finally nail down Clinton.

As to whether or not Clinton has ever lied to the American people-- yeah, probably. I mean, it's an inconvenient truth in politics, but the vast majority of them are liars, or have lied at some point. Every once in a while, it seems like there is someone who comes along like Sanders who seems predisposed to overt honesty, but they're very rare, and Bernie is rife with his own flaws.

I see across the aisle a man that comes out and wantonly lies day after day depending on who's in front of him. He's a spineless worm who hedges his bets and says he'll be "flexible" so that he doesn't have to adopt any firm political stances on anything, and says he'll be "unpredictable" to try to mask, in a very shallow way, that he's an absolutely clueless buffoon on anything of regarding national and world foreign policy. He seems to me to be an opportunist who is willing to hock whatever he thinks the people in front of him want to garner their votes, or, oddly, for an "outsider"-- a consummate politician.

In addition, he is, by my estimation, a bigoted, xenophobic, jingoistic, self-centered, hypersensitive, braggadocious man-child.

I support Clinton because she puts forth a policy platform that best aligns with my own political hopes for our country.

Given the choice between those two, the choice for me is an easy one.

She? Sorry, read that wrong.
Good post

 

[Danny Bateman]

They're all seeking political gains from this. I agree that there were some cringe-worthy moments in that questioning, but it was an 11-hour session. I'd be shocked if there weren't. From what I've read, the Dems are pissed that this is even still going on, because they appear to believe that there's nothing there. Republicans want to keep interviewing more and more people for their investigation, and to me, that suggests that perhaps they don't have a whole lot of anything.

I'm totally fine that you base your opinion on how you yourself view the situation. That's pretty smart, and it's the same thing we all do. You and I just see the situation differently.

As to your bit about seeking political gains, this ticks me off, because in my minds, they're all seeking political gains from this. This is of course prefaced by my belief that this is a useless investigation at this point. But to me, it appears that they've turned this into a political football, trying to use it to score points, both because it allows them another ongoing weapon with which to bash Clinton with, and because they desperately hope to be the ones to finally nail down Clinton.

As to whether or not Clinton has ever lied to the American people-- yeah, probably. I mean, it's an inconvenient truth in politics, but the vast majority of them are liars, or have lied at some point. Every once in a while, it seems like there is someone who comes along like Sanders who seems predisposed to overt honesty, but they're very rare, and Bernie is rife with his own flaws.

I see across the aisle a man that comes out and wantonly lies day after day depending on who's in front of him. He's a spineless worm who hedges his bets and says he'll be "flexible" so that he doesn't have to adopt any firm political stances on anything, and says he'll be "unpredictable" to try to mask, in a very shallow way, that he's an absolutely clueless buffoon on anything of regarding national and world foreign policy. He seems to me to be an opportunist who is willing to hock whatever he thinks the people in front of him want to garner their votes, or, oddly, for an "outsider"-- a consummate politician.

In addition, he is, by my estimation, a bigoted, xenophobic, jingoistic, self-centered, hypersensitive, braggadocious man-child.

I support Clinton because she puts forth a policy platform that best aligns with my own political hopes for our country.

Given the choice between those two, the choice for me is an easy one.

She?

She.

 

[teachercd]

They're all seeking political gains from this. I agree that there were some cringe-worthy moments in that questioning, but it was an 11-hour session. I'd be shocked if there weren't. From what I've read, the Dems are pissed that this is even still going on, because they appear to believe that there's nothing there. Republicans want to keep interviewing more and more people for their investigation, and to me, that suggests that perhaps they don't have a whole lot of anything.

I'm totally fine that you base your opinion on how you yourself view the situation. That's pretty smart, and it's the same thing we all do. You and I just see the situation differently.

As to your bit about seeking political gains, this ticks me off, because in my minds, they're all seeking political gains from this. This is of course prefaced by my belief that this is a useless investigation at this point. But to me, it appears that they've turned this into a political football, trying to use it to score points, both because it allows them another ongoing weapon with which to bash Clinton with, and because they desperately hope to be the ones to finally nail down Clinton.

As to whether or not Clinton has ever lied to the American people-- yeah, probably. I mean, it's an inconvenient truth in politics, but the vast majority of them are liars, or have lied at some point. Every once in a while, it seems like there is someone who comes along like Sanders who seems predisposed to overt honesty, but they're very rare, and Bernie is rife with his own flaws.

I see across the aisle a man that comes out and wantonly lies day after day depending on who's in front of him. He's a spineless worm who hedges his bets and says he'll be "flexible" so that he doesn't have to adopt any firm political stances on anything, and says he'll be "unpredictable" to try to mask, in a very shallow way, that he's an absolutely clueless buffoon on anything of regarding national and world foreign policy. He seems to me to be an opportunist who is willing to hock whatever he thinks the people in front of him want to garner their votes, or, oddly, for an "outsider"-- a consummate politician.

In addition, he is, by my estimation, a bigoted, xenophobic, jingoistic, self-centered, hypersensitive, braggadocious man-child.

I support Clinton because she puts forth a policy platform that best aligns with my own political hopes for our country.

Given the choice between those two, the choice for me is an easy one.

She?

She.

I edited it...sorry, I don't see or label gender. It doesn't matter when running for president

 

[QMany]

It's getting old, teach.

 

[teachercd]

It's getting old, teach.

What's that? Not being biased at all based on gender? Morian said it should not matter at all and I am trying to copy that. So Hillary and trump are both "it".
Try it, try getting rid of labels. I think you will feel free. Form now on, please call me, it.

I don't want to see color, or height, or gender, or intelligence, I just want to see people. Don't you think that's the right way?

I just want everybody to be looked at the same Exactly the same Don't you think that's correct?

No more difference!!!

 

[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.

Please explain...

It's even funnier that you act like I have to explain.

 

[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...

It's even funnier that you act like I have to explain.

Saying Hillary would try to take away our 2nd amendment isn't fear-mongering. It's the 100% truth. That's why the NRA just endorsed Trump.

 

[BigRedBuster]

LOL.......

 

[Danny Bateman]

I was just thinking about that. That's absolutely not true. Just because she supports universal background checks, she wants to eliminate the second amendment? Come on. That's just partisan BS that Cruz and now Trump used to gin up support.

Personally, I'd rather the mentally ill or violent felons NOT be packing heat. I WOULD like to focus on them being able to vote, but no one wants to have that conversation.

The gun control illustrates why I have a problem with Trump. Here's his "evolution" of his stance:

1. I'm going to eliminate gun free zones. We should have have guns in schools.

2. I don't advocate for guns in schools, but sometimes the argument should be made that teachers should have guns in schools. What is going on in our schools is terrible.

3. (Later clarification) Trained teachers or resource officers should be the only ones with guns in schools.

Well, what the f--- is it? It really bothers me that every time he takes a position, he has to hedge his bets and go through about three or four clarifications before we know what he really thinks. Or at least what he admits publicly.

 

[HuskerShark]

The only thing accomplished by repealing the 2nd amendment would be taking guns out of the hands of the people who use them legally and responsibly. It would have no effect, or potentially even an inverse effect when it comes to the people that use guns for bad things.

Our founding fathers were brilliant, and they warned us never to let the government take our guns. I'll listen to them WAY before the Hillary Clintons of the world.