BruceVC

Let me guess....the people who claim she is unqualified are......Trump and GOP supporters ? clinton has experience. is not same as being qualified. to once again mention the foreign policy blunders o' the obama administration would be a d HA! Good Fun! ps if kgambit or others wanna fight with bruce 'bout US foreign policy mistakes o' the last 8 years, so be it, but we has done the groundhog day shtick too many times for it to be funny. Guys please lets not be worried about discussing US foreign policy, I am very comfortable having this debate yet again. Some of you guys feel Obama failed or made several blunders, I know some but what exactly would you guys say are " failures of the US foreign policy " ...just make bullet points if you want so I get the general idea, because i can't be bothered to review the half dozen fruitless and previous incarnations of the foreign policy debates that exist on this board. fixed HA! Good Fun! Thats fine, I understand if you dont feel comfortable discussing this You normally are prepared to debate points for days so I'm surprised you cant just list a few points that highlight the Obama blunders? Because as GD stated quite clearly, the bullet point list has been done ad infinitum and you always dismiss the points raised out of hand. Why should anyone bother jumping thru that hoop again with you? You know the definition of insanity Bruce? Repeating the same actions over and over again and expecting a different result. PS: I'm surprised GD even bothered. You mistaking the fact I dont agree with you with the fact I am ignoring your views I stand by my view that Obama has taken the USA in the right direction on foreign policy, if you disagree then make your case

Thanks, in response Pulling out of Iraq before the government was stable which directly led to ISIS becoming a thing. Nope it really was time to pullout, the USA wasnt wanted....or so al-maliki claimed https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/may/04/iraq-usa-urban-troop-withdrawal Telling Assad he would intervene if the Syrians used chemical weapons. Then not doing it when they did. Then doing it later but half assed.You of all people really think the USA should have attacked Syria with the complications of the Russian connection and the different extremist groups...I thought you always believed in non-intervention? Interventions in Libya, and especially YemenThe USA did what was asked, it provided airpower to help the Libyan rebels Not using the CIA to support the Green Revolution in Iran.Iran is not a weak country as far as there control of the military and secret police is concerned ...besides there is now a moderate leaders in Iran now and people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are gone Bowing and groveling before foreign bad mouthing his own country every time he left our shores.Examples?

You conflating issues, I wont just call anyone a liar until I am comfortable with the facts How is my view of Hilary related to this " obvious failures\blunders of US foreign policy " ?

Let me guess....the people who claim she is unqualified are......Trump and GOP supporters ? clinton has experience. is not same as being qualified. to once again mention the foreign policy blunders o' the obama administration would be a d HA! Good Fun! ps if kgambit or others wanna fight with bruce 'bout US foreign policy mistakes o' the last 8 years, so be it, but we has done the groundhog day shtick too many times for it to be funny. Guys please lets not be worried about discussing US foreign policy, I am very comfortable having this debate yet again. Some of you guys feel Obama failed or made several blunders, I know some but what exactly would you guys say are " failures of the US foreign policy " ...just make bullet points if you want so I get the general idea, because i can't be bothered to review the half dozen fruitless and previous incarnations of the foreign policy debates that exist on this board. fixed HA! Good Fun! Thats fine, I understand if you dont feel comfortable discussing this You normally are prepared to debate points for days so I'm surprised you cant just list a few points that highlight the Obama blunders?

am with you on this. am not getting how the "goldman-sachs" response became the reflexive argument to counter trump's reluctance to provide tax returns. trump supporters wanna see transcripts? ok. fine. how on earth does that diminish the value and relevance o' trump's tax returns? why don't trump supporters wanna see his tax returns? got a businessman with no political experience running for President. so... tax returns. HA! Good Fun! Trumps refusal to release his tax returns should be one of the biggest issues his supporters have as this demonstrates something he is prepared to hide Its such a contradiction, Trump is constantly claiming he is a '' successful businessman " yet he cant even produce something as fundamental as this

Don't wrestle a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it! Why is telling the truth not considered good etiquette? Hmmm, maybe Hillary should try it sometime. ​

Let me guess....the people who claim she is unqualified are......Trump and GOP supporters ? clinton has experience. is not same as being qualified. to once again mention the foreign policy blunders o' the obama administration would be a d HA! Good Fun! ps if kgambit or others wanna fight with bruce 'bout US foreign policy mistakes o' the last 8 years, so be it, but we has done the groundhog day shtick too many times for it to be funny. Guys please lets not be worried about discussing US foreign policy, I am very comfortable having this debate Some of you guys feel Obama failed or made several blunders, I know some but what exactly would you guys say are " failures of the US foreign policy " ...just make bullet points if you want so I get the general idea

Let me guess....the people who claim she is unqualified are......Trump and GOP supporters ? Not necessarily I do see some Trump supporters say she is unqualified but most of the people I've seen that argue against her experience don't do it to say she isn't qualified. It's more just they don't like some of the things she'd done or the stances she'd previously taken Terrible example time - Take a politician you don't like and agree with, let's say Putin. Tons of experience but do you actually like his record? Do you agree with the things he's done? No I think Putin has made numerous bad decisions .....there is no reason Russia has to feel the West wants to undermine them For me there are several things a good leader has to demonstrate like The person must be democratically elected and be accountable to the people and media The leader must consider the overall welfare of his citizens and ensure economic growth Putin is none of these so for me he is a bad leader

Don't wrestle a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it! Why is telling the truth not considered good etiquette? I watched someone on CNN being very critical of what Hillary said and yes she embellished the overall number but I have seen examples of groups of Trumps supporters being very offensive

Let me guess....the people who claim she is unqualified are......Trump and GOP supporters ? Well, I'd imagine Chrs Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, & Glen Doherty might claim she is unqualified. But they can't because they are dead. She ignored them, left the to die and then lied to their families and the whole country (but not to her daughter, the President, or her inner circle apparently) about what happened. But you don't want to hear about that do you Bruce? Wouldn't be "balanced" after all. Thats a cheap shot .....uncalled for and not relevant

Let me guess....the people who claim she is unqualified are......Trump and GOP supporters ?

No I didnt because it would be unfair to scrutinize either candidate's history in this way and then judge them on this type of past action Things like the email scandal matter to me And I am being balanced, I could post daily inconsistencies of things Trump says that are inaccurate but I only post the " big " things he says Are you really saying that a candidate's past performance in business and/or government isn't pertinent in judging their qualifications for POTUS? Or is that just a convenient excuse that lets you sweep uncomfortable things under the rug? Dont get mad with me because you think both candidates are worthless, all I'm saying is both people seem to have a history But since you did ask, obviously Clinton has more experience in government. This is irrefutable http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/27/1416000/-Hillary-Rodham-Clinton-The-Most-Experienced-Presidential-Candidate-This-Election-Cycle

No I didnt because it would be unfair to scrutinize either candidate's history in this way and then judge them on this type of past action Things like the email scandal matter to me And I am being balanced, I could post daily inconsistencies of things Trump says that are inaccurate but I only post the " big " things he says And right there you just fell into the biggest trap of this election. You can't make a positive argument for one candidate without mentioning the other. They are, without a doubt, the two biggest turds to ever float in the electoral bowl at the same time. The only positive statement anyone can make about either is "well at least they are not the other one". "turds " Oh by the way, it shouldn't be seen as huge negative because Johnson didnt know about Aleppo There is nothing the USA can do because its the Syrians and Russians who are bombing the city...and now the Russians have agreed with the USA to a peace deal but why would Johnson know about Aleppo ? http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/09/09/russia-us-reach-cease-fire-deal-syria/90147222/

So Putin has a very high popularity rating.....so what, its irrelevant when compared to the damage he has caused Russia. You do realize Russia has been in a recession for nearly 2 years? Please read this link....how can you not think a failure to manage any economy by any government is a failure of leadership http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/11/news/economy/russia-economy-recession-six-quarters/index.html

No I didnt because it would be unfair to scrutinize either candidate's history in this way and then judge them on this type of past action Things like the email scandal matter to me And I am being balanced, I could post daily inconsistencies of things Trump says that are inaccurate but I only post the " big " things he says

He also had his "enemies lists" and a reputation for being verbally abusive of family and staff. Of course low character and high character can certainly co-exist. No one is so bad they don't have some redeeming qualities or so good they have no flaws. Still, I'd take a person which is verbally abusive over one who is corrupt and won't resign any day. Are you referring to Hilary when you say " who is corrupt and won't resign any day. " That Hillary is corrupt (or at the VERY least irredeemably dishonest) is no longer a fact that can be disputed Bruce. I realize you picked you horse here and that's fine. As I posted before being dishonest or even corrupt does not mean she will not make an effective President necessarily. But you should be aware of what you are buying with her. And her bad qualities do not necessarily make Trump a better option for some folks. It's not for nothing we say elections here are about choosing the lesser evil. Just to be clear, we are saying she is corrupt because of the whole email scandal and her private email server? Do you read nothing that get's linked here? Seriously? That is one piece of a very, very big picture. The corruption is certainly debatable. Was she using the server to hide from FOI & Congress? Is the Clinton Foundation a pay to play vehicle for bribes, etc? We'll never know the truth. but there is a lot of evidence to suggest she not on the up and up. But her dishonesty about it all, and about many, many things she has said and done over the years is beyond dispute. She is a liar. She is a habitual liar. Even YOU would have to concede that. Why would I automatically believe something that is based on a subjective view of her motives? Sorry GD but neither the email scandal or Clinton Foundation is irrefutable proof of her dishonesty but if you can share other things she did I would like to read them? I know you think I'm biased but Im not....I always look at any accusation objectively Jesus Christ are you really going to make me do this again? Alright, but mister, you had best read ever last one of them! She claimed to be dead broke when they left the White House: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyLhDz_ZvA4&feature=youtu.be , they were not. They were worth over $10M and each had just gotten $2M advances on their books: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/29/hillary-clinton-on-her-dead-broke-misstep-i-regret-it/ The whole sniper fire thing in Bosnia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZHO1vo762c She claimed she was named for Sir Edmund Hillary. She was six years old when he climbed Everest She claimed she tried to join the Marines in 1975, that wasn't true: http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/12/fact-checker-hits-hillary-for-claiming-she-tried-to-join-the-marines-video/ Even the FBI said she lied to them AND to Congress about her e-mail server She lied to the whole world about Benghazi: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/28/benghazi-report-points-out-obama-clinton-lies/ She was fires from a house judiciary job in 1973 for "unethical behavior". She and another lawyer wrote a "fraudulent legal brief". Need I go on? I haven't even gotten to Whitewater of the other good stuff. Thanks, I'll go through these before I comment Putin is a better leader than Obama......seriously? How is he a better leader....what has he done better than Obama?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-commander-idUSKCN11D12K Is no one concerned about this comment where Trump said Putin is a better leader than Obama?

Remember its about " proving how tough the USA is " as far as Trump is concerned He would attack the Iranian navy, destabilize the Uranium enrichment deal and in turn make the entire ME more chaotic and unmanageable all because he " wants to show Iran cant bully the USA " Why?

He also had his "enemies lists" and a reputation for being verbally abusive of family and staff. Of course low character and high character can certainly co-exist. No one is so bad they don't have some redeeming qualities or so good they have no flaws. Still, I'd take a person which is verbally abusive over one who is corrupt and won't resign any day. Are you referring to Hilary when you say " who is corrupt and won't resign any day. " That Hillary is corrupt (or at the VERY least irredeemably dishonest) is no longer a fact that can be disputed Bruce. I realize you picked you horse here and that's fine. As I posted before being dishonest or even corrupt does not mean she will not make an effective President necessarily. But you should be aware of what you are buying with her. And her bad qualities do not necessarily make Trump a better option for some folks. It's not for nothing we say elections here are about choosing the lesser evil. Just to be clear, we are saying she is corrupt because of the whole email scandal and her private email server? Do you read nothing that get's linked here? Seriously? That is one piece of a very, very big picture. The corruption is certainly debatable. Was she using the server to hide from FOI & Congress? Is the Clinton Foundation a pay to play vehicle for bribes, etc? We'll never know the truth. but there is a lot of evidence to suggest she not on the up and up. But her dishonesty about it all, and about many, many things she has said and done over the years is beyond dispute. She is a liar. She is a habitual liar. Even YOU would have to concede that. Why would I automatically believe something that is based on a subjective view of her motives? Sorry GD but neither the email scandal or Clinton Foundation is irrefutable proof of her dishonesty but if you can share other things she did I would like to read them? I know you think I'm biased but Im not....I always look at any accusation objectively

He also had his "enemies lists" and a reputation for being verbally abusive of family and staff. Of course low character and high character can certainly co-exist. No one is so bad they don't have some redeeming qualities or so good they have no flaws. Still, I'd take a person which is verbally abusive over one who is corrupt and won't resign any day. Are you referring to Hilary when you say " who is corrupt and won't resign any day. " That Hillary is corrupt (or at the VERY least irredeemably dishonest) is no longer a fact that can be disputed Bruce. I realize you picked you horse here and that's fine. As I posted before being dishonest or even corrupt does not mean she will not make an effective President necessarily. But you should be aware of what you are buying with her. And her bad qualities do not necessarily make Trump a better option for some folks. It's not for nothing we say elections here are about choosing the lesser evil. Just to be clear, we are saying she is corrupt because of the whole email scandal and her private email server?

He also had his "enemies lists" and a reputation for being verbally abusive of family and staff. Of course low character and high character can certainly co-exist. No one is so bad they don't have some redeeming qualities or so good they have no flaws. Still, I'd take a person which is verbally abusive over one who is corrupt and won't resign any day. Are you referring to Hilary when you say " who is corrupt and won't resign any day. "

Bit rich when you consider how Trump behaves like a low level forum troll. Certainly are a lot of trash backing Trump watching his rallies, but not sure of the percentage I'm surprised people seem to think " Trump hasn't really offended anyone "

No, it isn't unprecedented. He have had a few candidates with no experience and no love for their fellow man run and even win. Aaron Burr, George Wallace, John Tyler (who actually became President when William Henry Harrison died), and William Randolph Hearst were all bombastic and crude in ways to make you think Trump isn't so bad. There have been many with no prior political experience like Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, Zachary Taylor, Ulysses Grant, Dwight Eisenhower all won. They were all Army Generals (except Wilson) before running for office. Ross Perot, Wendell Wilkie, Horace Greely, Winfield Han****, Winfield Scott all lost. There are others but that's all I can think of off the top of my head. We've had Presidents who were not good people too. John Adams and his son, Richard Nixon, Warren Harding, and Lyndon Johnson were all reputed to be men you would look you in the eye, tell you to go f--k yourself then help you do it. Trump is hardly unprecedented. We've had a whole gallery of rogues, scoundrels, and pretenders along the way. No you misunderstand me, I dont mean Trump is so bad and malicious it is unprecedented...as I mentioned numerous times most of the offensive things Trump has said are strategic and all about a political objective ...he miscalculated the impact of some of his comments but thats just hubris I mean the way Trump has won the Republican nomination and the strategy he has employed has been so effective because of the exciting political period the USA is going through Its the overall political campaigns that are unprecedented

It is odd because I never realised how many people are so unhappy with Obama, I like Obama and I support most of his global policies and some of the domestic ones like the Gay Marriage Law Anyway this election is very exciting...cant wait to the actual election date

Oh no I'm fine saying " some of Trumps supporters are bigots "...surly we dont need to dispute this? You can say what you want about Hilary Clinton's supporters? Its not going to change her support base really This election and the whole " Trump rise to power " reality is unprecedented in US politics. I am surprised you think this is normal?