US Election 2016, part II

[redneckdevil]

And thank you everybody for the answers to my question. I believe everyone was right lol.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

GD I see a real inconsistency in this type of statement, help please to understand this

 

Patraeus and Snowden have both been found guilty of certain crimes...this is fact. Hilary has been accused of crimes....why is she associated with them?

 

When the Cosby rape charges were revealed I said he was a disgrace and he was guilty, I said for this type of crime I dont need a jury to pronounce on his guilt ...to me thats just a technicality

 

I was told by several members that in the USA people are not presumed guilty and there must be a legal obligation for them to go to court before we presume guilt

 

So now it seems people give this courtesy to a truly deviant and reprehensible person like Cosby but Hilary we assume she is guilty before she even goes to court .....do you see why I appears hypocritical ?

I think the thing is it's innocent until proven guilty, not "not guilty" until proven guilty. Innocence assumes that the person "hasn't" done anything wrong while not guilty is a judgement of "didn't" do anything wrong.

As to why she's there with them, the only difference is she hasn't been to court yet for some reason I can't fathom, even though there's tons of evidence available to the public that IF was used in a court of law, she would be found guilty.

More and more, it keeps looking like this election is rigged.

Okay, but aren't we debating semantics now because this is not about my definition which is based on South Africa crime which is at an unprecedented level

 

I was told by you guys in the USA people are innocent until proven guilty, that concept is simple enough but Hilary has by your own admittance not been guilty in a court of law yet people are fine saying she is guilty. I dont see how she is different?

okay, think of it this way for example. Person gets caught WHILE in the process of doing a crime. It's on video, several eye witnesses, the whole shebang. When brought into court to have the case taken care, the court isn't just gonna hand out a punishment and then move on. Innocent until proven guilty means that every citizen has the right to try their case and have someone PROVE that they did something.

You knew the person was guilty before the trial, but at the trial, the person has to be taken as an innocent person to the court only UNTIL the court proves they did something wrong and then person who did it gets punished. It's not the public that is caged by the rule, but it's the law who is because they deliver the punishment.

 

So yes I can says she's guilty and say it now and before and during and after the trial IF it ever does and to me she's guilty. I don't enforce the law, the courts do, so they are the only ones who have to view them as innocent when the case first starts because they are the ones who enforce and punish if laws broken LEGALLY. Sometimes the public has had to step rightfully and wrongefully, because the court system would rule them that way.

I'm a bit stoned so hopefully this came out legible.

 

 

I am also stoned so you making perfect sense, I organised some really good hydroponic weed. Its has this nice effect where you feel nicely but I dont feel dumb   

[Longknife]

 

GD I see a real inconsistency in this type of statement, help please to understand this

 

Patraeus and Snowden have both been found guilty of certain crimes...this is fact. Hilary has been accused of crimes....why is she associated with them?

 

When the Cosby rape charges were revealed I said he was a disgrace and he was guilty, I said for this type of crime I dont need a jury to pronounce on his guilt ...to me thats just a technicality 

 

I was told by several members that in the USA people are not presumed guilty and there must be a legal  obligation for them to go to court before we presume guilt

 

So now it seems people give this courtesy to a truly deviant and reprehensible person like Cosby  but Hilary we assume she is guilty before she even goes to court  .....do you see why I appears hypocritical ?

 

 

Because only someone completely blind to the situation would truly find themselves devoid of any suspicion that Clinton is guilty.

 

No one is saying arrest her now, no one is saying don't give her a fair trial. What's being said is that why the HELL would anyone vote for someone with such obviously strong claims against them (she's doing a terrible job of denying said claims) and what's more there's concern she will walk away scot-free because of direct ties to the White House itself.

 

Waiting for a fair trial is one thing. Allowing someone to run for President of the United States while a criminal investigation is taking place against that person is downright insanity. If innocent by all means let them run next election, but here we not only have an ongoing investigation that could threaten the presidency or the democratic candidacy (imagine if she were indicted in October or in December, what happens then?), but the entire DNC is highly suspect for leaked documents regarding bias in her favor. FFS there's currently a class-action lawsuit in the works against the DNC itself.

 

"Natural selection" will weed out the democratic party at this rate, but it's absurd we need to rely on that instead of the government itself showing concern over potentially having an indicted official run for office.

[Guard Dog]

 

GD I see a real inconsistency in this type of statement, help please to understand this

 

Patraeus and Snowden have both been found guilty of certain crimes...this is fact. Hilary has been accused of crimes....why is she associated with them?

 

When the Cosby rape charges were revealed I said he was a disgrace and he was guilty, I said for this type of crime I dont need a jury to pronounce on his guilt ...to me thats just a technicality 

 

I was told by several members that in the USA people are not presumed guilty and there must be a legal  obligation for them to go to court before we presume guilt

 

So now it seems people give this courtesy to a truly deviant and reprehensible person like Cosby  but Hilary we assume she is guilty before she even goes to court  .....do you see why I appears hypocritical ?

 

OK, here is everything that is wrong with this meme:

1. None of these three did the same thing. Petraeus exposed classified information to a journalist who was writing a biography on him and who he was having an affair with. He didn't want to leave an e-mail trail to be found so he would write messages and save them as drafts and have her access to his classified e-mail so she could read them.... and everything else he was exposed to as well.
2. Snowden INTENTIONALLY leaked information that the Federal government spying on everyday Americans (you know the people they are REALLY afraid of) in a way that would make Orwell blush. As well as spying on friendly governments and unfriendly alike. 
3. Hillary Clinton disregarded the legal and procedural requirements that all of her e-mails as the Secratery of State were the property of the US Government. That same government was nice enough to set up a secure e-mail and data system which she deigned not to use for reasons that we can only speculate about. So she bought and used her own server which had none of the security and safeguards of the State Dept one AND did not have those pesky backups that would allow Congress to see those e-mails because, well, they DO have a right to after all. Once it was discovered that she was doing this and that server was not secure and terabytes of sensitive and classified information had been compromised and none of it was available for oversight (there is that pesky law again) it turned into a scandal. To which Hillary Clinton responded by having all data on that server professionally destroyed before complying with a court order to turn them over.
4. This is a meme which is sort of like a political cartoon in that it makes a point but it also meant to be humorous. You are micro-analyzing it and that tends to not work. Of course any detail that Hillary might be the dirtbag we are all telling you she is will be dismissed by you out of hand because 1) She's a woman which you think seems to lend her some "special" credibility. 2) She is a controlling and government loving technocrat that is beholden to globalists, giant corporations, and of course the ever pervasive PC crowd that probably agrees with you that prison sentences are appropriate for "thoughtcrime".     

Edited June 26, 2016 by Guard Dog

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Its has this nice effect where you feel nicely but I dont feel dumb

Well that hardly means anything 

[BruceVC]

 

 

GD I see a real inconsistency in this type of statement, help please to understand this

 

Patraeus and Snowden have both been found guilty of certain crimes...this is fact. Hilary has been accused of crimes....why is she associated with them?

 

When the Cosby rape charges were revealed I said he was a disgrace and he was guilty, I said for this type of crime I dont need a jury to pronounce on his guilt ...to me thats just a technicality 

 

I was told by several members that in the USA people are not presumed guilty and there must be a legal  obligation for them to go to court before we presume guilt

 

So now it seems people give this courtesy to a truly deviant and reprehensible person like Cosby  but Hilary we assume she is guilty before she even goes to court  .....do you see why I appears hypocritical ?

 

 

1. This is a meme which is sort of like a political cartoon in that it makes a point but it also meant to be humorous. You are micro-analyzing it and that tends to not work. Of course any detail that Hillary might be the dirtbag we are all telling you she is will be dismissed by you out of hand because 1) She's a woman which you think seems to lend her some "special" credibility. 2) She is a controlling and government loving technocrat that is beholden to globalists, giant corporations, and of course the ever pervasive PC crowd that probably agrees with you that prison sentences are appropriate for "thoughtcrime".     

 

Okay so if its  a cartoon then I'm definitely over-analyzing it....lets not have this debate over something unnecessary 

 

But other members thought it was real so the discussion is  relevant ? But GD I mentioned I dont just support her because she is women, don't you realize that would me shallow

 

She is qualified and is the best candidate  but Trump has also offended and alienated many Americans ...he has offended many women in the USA and they are 53 % of total voting population. Trump constantly feels the need to tell his supporters how rich and successful he is....yet he doesnt understand that you cannot insult women and tell  them " they are fat, disgusting pigs "  They will make Trump pay in the election and this will be gratifying for me

 

Also you cant implement my idea of racism  and jailing people in the USA because of your Constitution and freedom of speech

[BruceVC]

 

Its has this nice effect where you feel nicely but I dont feel dumb

Well that hardly means anything 

 

 

 

You being  cheeky young man but you right ..what is clever or dumb for me 

[Valsuelm]

 

http://us.cnn.com/2016/06/26/politics/hillary-clinton-leads-donald-trump-polls/index.html

 

A bit of good news for  Clinton supporters , its at least predictable  and I prefer that considering the BREXIT initial shock

 

I dislike just using one or two polls to make an argument, but FiveThirtyEight grades WashingtonPost/ABC News as an A+ pollster. There's something to that.

 

Looking at the big picture, Clinton has had a steady, and sometimes huge lead in the aggregate over Trump since the start of the campaign season.

 

 

It's getting closer to final bell and Clinton's been more than capable of absorbing Trump's haymakers.

 

 

Final bell?

 

The main event hasn't even kicked off yet. No haymakers have been thrown by Trump at Hillary yet, nor vice versa. All that's happened is some pre main event jibjabbing by the contestants. The ass whoppin of Hillary is coming, worry not.

 

[BruceVC]

 

 

GD I see a real inconsistency in this type of statement, help please to understand this

 

Patraeus and Snowden have both been found guilty of certain crimes...this is fact. Hilary has been accused of crimes....why is she associated with them?

 

When the Cosby rape charges were revealed I said he was a disgrace and he was guilty, I said for this type of crime I dont need a jury to pronounce on his guilt ...to me thats just a technicality 

 

I was told by several members that in the USA people are not presumed guilty and there must be a legal  obligation for them to go to court before we presume guilt

 

So now it seems people give this courtesy to a truly deviant and reprehensible person like Cosby  but Hilary we assume she is guilty before she even goes to court  .....do you see why I appears hypocritical ?

 

 

Because only someone completely blind to the situation would truly find themselves devoid of any suspicion that Clinton is guilty.

 

No one is saying arrest her now, no one is saying don't give her a fair trial. What's being said is that why the HELL would anyone vote for someone with such obviously strong claims against them (she's doing a terrible job of denying said claims) and what's more there's concern she will walk away scot-free because of direct ties to the White House itself.

 

Waiting for a fair trial is one thing. Allowing someone to run for President of the United States while a criminal investigation is taking place against that person is downright insanity. If innocent by all means let them run next election, but here we not only have an ongoing investigation that could threaten the presidency or the democratic candidacy (imagine if she were indicted in October or in December, what happens then?), but the entire DNC is highly suspect for leaked documents regarding bias in her favor. FFS there's currently a class-action lawsuit in the works against the DNC itself.

 

"Natural selection" will weed out the democratic party at this rate, but it's absurd we need to rely on that instead of the government itself showing concern over potentially having an indicted official run for office.

 

The issue I have with this post is that you still think everyone should believe  she is guilty as if  its a irrefutable fact but the reality is many, myself included, people simply dont believe she is guilty 

 

And I discussed this with GD and I read an entire article about this and her guilt is not clear 

[Leferd]

 

 

Final bell?

The main event hasn't even kicked off yet. No haymakers have been thrown by Trump at Hillary yet, nor vice versa. All that's happened is some pre main event jibjabbing by the contestants. The ass whoppin of Hillary is coming, worry not.

 

 

Lols. Man, if even Trump supporters don't realize that the bout started several rounds ago...no wonder Trump's campaign is such a disorganized, hot mess right now.

 

Trump's campaign is in shambles. He has no ground game in battleground states and very little money. They have exactly one communications staffer. They fired their thug of a campaign manager only to replace him with a guy who hasn't been involved in a national US campaign in literally 20 years --who's CV includes propping up foreign dictators. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Manafort

[Valsuelm]

 

..... Trump's campaign is such a disorganized, hot mess right now.

 

Trump's campaign is in shambles. He has no ground game in battleground states and very little money. They have exactly one communications staffer. They fired their thug of a campaign manager only to replace him with a guy who hasn't been involved in a national US campaign in literally 20 years --who's CV includes propping up foreign dictators. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Manafort

 

 

Do you sincerely believe this?

 

Sheesh! if you do. As it certainly isn't so. I wouldn't even levy that accusation at Hillary's camp. Both campaigns know what they are doing methinks. While Hillary herself might be an incompetent sociopathic Eviloid, her string pullers are at least competent, if not still sociopathic Eviloids..

 

Get those 'The Great Valsuelm has spoken!' posts ready.

 

 

As a consolation prize I've been considering making at least one 'The Mighty Leferd hath spoken!' post, as it will still surely be fun.

 

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Final bell?

The main event hasn't even kicked off yet. No haymakers have been thrown by Trump at Hillary yet, nor vice versa. All that's happened is some pre main event jibjabbing by the contestants. The ass whoppin of Hillary is coming, worry not.

 

 

Lols. Man, if even Trump supporters don't realize that the bout started several rounds ago...no wonder Trump's campaign is such a disorganized, hot mess right now.

 

Trump's campaign is in shambles. He has no ground game in battleground states and very little money. They have exactly one communications staffer. They fired their thug of a campaign manager only to replace him with a guy who hasn't been involved in a national US campaign in literally 20 years --who's CV includes propping up foreign dictators. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Manafort

 

Guys this must be one of the MOST accurate assessments I have ever read, I hope everyone reads  it  

[Vaeliorin]

 

 

..... Trump's campaign is such a disorganized, hot mess right now.

 

Trump's campaign is in shambles. He has no ground game in battleground states and very little money. They have exactly one communications staffer. They fired their thug of a campaign manager only to replace him with a guy who hasn't been involved in a national US campaign in literally 20 years --who's CV includes propping up foreign dictators. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Manafort

 

 

Do you sincerely believe this?

 

Sheesh! if you do. As it certainly isn't so. I wouldn't even levy that accusation at Hillary's camp. Both campaigns know what they are doing methinks. While Hillary herself might be an incompetent sociopathic Eviloid, her string pullers are at least competent, if not still sociopathic Eviloids..

 

Get those 'The Great Valsuelm has spoken!' posts ready.

 

 

As a consolation prize I've been considering making at least one 'The Mighty Leferd hath spoken!' post, as it will still surely be fun.

 

 

As someone who lives in a battleground state (quite often the battleground state) we've been pummeled with anti-Trump ads, to the point I almost want to vote for him out of pure vindictiveness (I won't, but it doesn't change the desire), but I have yet to see any pro-Trump or anti-Hillary ads (no pro-Hillary ads, either.)  Makes it kind of hard to believe Trump knows what he's doing, unless he's counting on people like me to vote for him out of sheer annoyance at political ads, which seems unlikely.

 

Regardless, it doesn't matter either way.  They're both terrible.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

GD I see a real inconsistency in this type of statement, help please to understand this

 

Patraeus and Snowden have both been found guilty of certain crimes...this is fact. Hilary has been accused of crimes....why is she associated with them?

 

When the Cosby rape charges were revealed I said he was a disgrace and he was guilty, I said for this type of crime I dont need a jury to pronounce on his guilt ...to me thats just a technicality 

 

I was told by several members that in the USA people are not presumed guilty and there must be a legal  obligation for them to go to court before we presume guilt

 

So now it seems people give this courtesy to a truly deviant and reprehensible person like Cosby  but Hilary we assume she is guilty before she even goes to court  .....do you see why I appears hypocritical ?

 

 

Because only someone completely blind to the situation would truly find themselves devoid of any suspicion that Clinton is guilty.

 

No one is saying arrest her now, no one is saying don't give her a fair trial. What's being said is that why the HELL would anyone vote for someone with such obviously strong claims against them (she's doing a terrible job of denying said claims) and what's more there's concern she will walk away scot-free because of direct ties to the White House itself.

 

Waiting for a fair trial is one thing. Allowing someone to run for President of the United States while a criminal investigation is taking place against that person is downright insanity. If innocent by all means let them run next election, but here we not only have an ongoing investigation that could threaten the presidency or the democratic candidacy (imagine if she were indicted in October or in December, what happens then?), but the entire DNC is highly suspect for leaked documents regarding bias in her favor. FFS there's currently a class-action lawsuit in the works against the DNC itself.

 

"Natural selection" will weed out the democratic party at this rate, but it's absurd we need to rely on that instead of the government itself showing concern over potentially having an indicted official run for office.

 

The issue I have with this post is that you still think everyone should believe  she is guilty as if  its a irrefutable fact but the reality is many, myself included, people simply dont believe she is guilty 

 

And I discussed this with GD and I read an entire article about this and her guilt is not clear 

 

Her guilt is VERY clear. She ordered the destruction of data that was the property of the United States Government. That much is not in dispute. When the Secretary of State conducts the business of the United States all communications belong to the United States. She circumvented that by using a private server. I will make no judgement on her motivations for doing that. She did it, we can all agree on that. Then when it was discovered and that server was subpoenaed she destroyed the data on it before turning them over. She is guilty of that. 

 

Now here is the thing... WHY did she destroy it? What did she want to hide? The FBI might know but the AG & DOJ (both controlled by HER political party) seem to be disinclined to do anything about it. And that's where we are. That she did something wrong is not in dispute. It's the level of culpability and the magnitude of the wrong we are speculating about.

 

And while we are speculating it is interesting to note that the Clinton Foundation, a charity well known to not be on the up and up with the IRS (which is ALSO controlled by her political party) received millions of dollars in donations from people representing foreign interests who received favorable treatment from the State Dept during her tenure as SecState. Now this may be just a coincidence (and I may be the next Pope). But it does pose some questions about all those e-mails she didn't want Congress to see doesn't it?

[Longknife]

 

 

 

 

GD I see a real inconsistency in this type of statement, help please to understand this

 

Patraeus and Snowden have both been found guilty of certain crimes...this is fact. Hilary has been accused of crimes....why is she associated with them?

 

When the Cosby rape charges were revealed I said he was a disgrace and he was guilty, I said for this type of crime I dont need a jury to pronounce on his guilt ...to me thats just a technicality 

 

I was told by several members that in the USA people are not presumed guilty and there must be a legal  obligation for them to go to court before we presume guilt

 

So now it seems people give this courtesy to a truly deviant and reprehensible person like Cosby  but Hilary we assume she is guilty before she even goes to court  .....do you see why I appears hypocritical ?

 

 

Because only someone completely blind to the situation would truly find themselves devoid of any suspicion that Clinton is guilty.

 

No one is saying arrest her now, no one is saying don't give her a fair trial. What's being said is that why the HELL would anyone vote for someone with such obviously strong claims against them (she's doing a terrible job of denying said claims) and what's more there's concern she will walk away scot-free because of direct ties to the White House itself.

 

Waiting for a fair trial is one thing. Allowing someone to run for President of the United States while a criminal investigation is taking place against that person is downright insanity. If innocent by all means let them run next election, but here we not only have an ongoing investigation that could threaten the presidency or the democratic candidacy (imagine if she were indicted in October or in December, what happens then?), but the entire DNC is highly suspect for leaked documents regarding bias in her favor. FFS there's currently a class-action lawsuit in the works against the DNC itself.

 

"Natural selection" will weed out the democratic party at this rate, but it's absurd we need to rely on that instead of the government itself showing concern over potentially having an indicted official run for office.

 

The issue I have with this post is that you still think everyone should believe  she is guilty as if  its a irrefutable fact but the reality is many, myself included, people simply dont believe she is guilty 

 

And I discussed this with GD and I read an entire article about this and her guilt is not clear 

 

Her guilt is VERY clear. She ordered the destruction of data that was the property of the United States Government. That much is not in dispute. When the Secretary of State conducts the business of the United States all communications belong to the United States. She circumvented that by using a private server. I will make no judgement on her motivations for doing that. She did it, we can all agree on that. Then when it was discovered and that server was subpoenaed she destroyed the data on it before turning them over. She is guilty of that. 

 

Now here is the thing... WHY did she destroy it? What did she want to hide? The FBI might know but the AG & DOJ (both controlled by HER political party) seem to be disinclined to do anything about it. And that's where we are. That she did something wrong is not in dispute. It's the level of culpability and the magnitude of the wrong we are speculating about.

 

And while we are speculating it is interesting to note that the Clinton Foundation, a charity well known to not be on the up and up with the IRS (which is ALSO controlled by her political party) received millions of dollars in donations from people representing foreign interests who received favorable treatment from the State Dept during her tenure as SecState. Now this may be just a coincidence (and I may be the next Pope). But it does pose some questions about all those e-mails she didn't want Congress to see doesn't it?

 

 

Just wanna interject and state that depending on the workings of the laws in play, the data Clinton hosted on her private server could basically be viewed as government "property," thus moving it to another server is akin to theft and destroying it is akin to damaging someone else's property. I can't say for certain that this is how it works in the US legal system, but merely wanted to toss that out there to state that sometimes the inner workings of the law demand far more serious treatments and charges of certain acts, and considering we're talking about highly classified information, I wouldn't be surprised if that's exactly how this'll be handled.

 

Also: add the DNC to the list of shady business. Her Secretary of State run was shady, the Clinton Foundation is shady, and the DNC is shady and currently has a class-action lawsuit against it because those recently leaked documents suggest the DNC itself was actively showing bias towards Clinton and trying to get her elected.

 

What's more, Clinton has not held a press conference in over 200 days. This is absolutely unprecedented for someone that's running for president. She has refused EVERY opportunity for the press to ask her questions without some degree of pre-rehearsal.

 

Honestly, I stand by my statement 100%: only someone completely blind to the situation would trust Hillary Clinton. She has not done a single trustworthy act or managed to avoid a conflict for more than six seconds at any given time. It's absolutely outrageous.

[Meshugger]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-it-comes-to-trump-a-republican-treasury-secretary-says-choose-country-over-party/2016/06/24/c7bdba34-3942-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html

 

Henry Paulson, Republican, former chief executive of Goldman Sachs and former US secretary of the Treasury supports Hillary Clinton. Why? because Trump refuses to touch Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

 

I have no further comment.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Meshugger

[BruceVC]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-it-comes-to-trump-a-republican-treasury-secretary-says-choose-country-over-party/2016/06/24/c7bdba34-3942-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html

 

Henry Paulson, Republican, former chief executive of Goldman Sachs and former US secretary of the Treasury supports Hillary Clinton. Why? because Trump refuses to touch Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

 

I have no further comment.

 Okay I must apologize to you. I always assumed you were a Trump supporter and you wouldn't post a negative Trump article 

 

But this is a very powerful and thought provoking perspective and  offers insights about Trump that should concern every American on this forum

 

I only know of WOD  who is definitely voting Trump but I would  really appreciate if any Trump forum supporters would read this and still decide to vote for Trump ?

Edited June 27, 2016 by BruceVC

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

DNC shoots down Sanders' agenda for the platform

 

Apparently Cornel West didn't take it too well. Hopefully we'll see Sanders jump ship from the Democratic Party, I know a significant amount of his supporters will.

[Guard Dog]

I genuinely believe no one is supporting Trump for any reason he can take credit for. They are not "for" him, they are against Hillary.

[BruceVC]

I genuinely believe no one is supporting Trump for any reason he can take credit for. They are not "for" him, they are against Hillary.

Okay that is a good point, I never considered that 

 

But it just seems extreme, is she really that disliked?

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

http://us.cnn.com/2016/06/26/politics/hillary-clinton-leads-donald-trump-polls/index.html

 

A bit of good news for  Clinton supporters , its at least predictable  and I prefer that considering the BREXIT initial shock

 

I dislike just using one or two polls to make an argument, but FiveThirtyEight grades WashingtonPost/ABC News as an A+ pollster. There's something to that.

 

Looking at the big picture, Clinton has had a steady, and sometimes huge lead in the aggregate over Trump since the start of the campaign season.

 

 

It's getting closer to final bell and Clinton's been more than capable of absorbing Trump's haymakers.

 

It's all media propaganda. When the Libertarians and the Greens are included in the polls, Hilzilla and Trump are tied: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/27/us/politics/donald-trump-slips-further-behind-hillary-clinton-in-new-polls.html?_r=2

[Guard Dog]

 

I genuinely believe no one is supporting Trump for any reason he can take credit for. They are not "for" him, they are against Hillary.

Okay that is a good point, I never considered that 

 

But it just seems extreme, is she really that disliked?

 

This election is like trying to choose the cleanest turd. Seriously do you read nothing we link here? Even you have to admit that while she is many things, honest is not one of them.   

Edited June 27, 2016 by Guard Dog

[BruceVC]

 

 

I genuinely believe no one is supporting Trump for any reason he can take credit for. They are not "for" him, they are against Hillary.

Okay that is a good point, I never considered that 

 

But it just seems extreme, is she really that disliked?

 

This election is like trying to choose the cleanest turd. Seriously do you read nothing we link here? Even you have to admit that while she is many things, honest is not one of them.   

 

If I was a Republican in America I just wouldn't vote this year, I wouldn't vote for Hilary but I wouldnt compromise my principles and vote Trump

 

The next Republican presidential candidate will be someone any Republican will be proud to vote for  

[Wrath of Dagon]

If you want to give up the Supreme Court for a generation and make sure you lose your last constitutional rights, like the Second and the First amendments, that's exactly what any butthurt Repube should do.

[BruceVC]

If you want to give up the Supreme Court for a generation and make sure you lose your last constitutional rights, like the Second and the First amendments, that's exactly what any butthurt Repube should do.

Are you saying these things will happen if Hilary wins?