Hillary's Campaign Kickoff

[DC Tom]

 

100%. Don't forget Libya. It's the progression. Ship in out of town rebels to destabilize. Propagandize the public into the ongoing "humanitarian crisis". Push a no-fly zone because it's "peaceful" and helps civilians. Then start bombing until the regime change is complete.

 

Syria's next on the list and people aren't paying attention to what she's really saying. A no-fly zone is a declaration of war, doubly so when that means attacking both Syrian and Russian anti-air missile sites to put the no-fly zone into effect.

 

But nah... that would imply it's a proxy war in Syria and we know that's false because Mags says so.

 

You really give her too much credit. She has always - even as First Lady - viewed foreign policy only in terms of domestic electoral politics. Libya and Syria both were extensions of the "Arab Spring" that so appealed to the ignorant and short-sighted crowd that believes in "grassroots democracy" (and is too stupid to distinguish it from tribal warfare.) The internecine Yugoslavia wars, the Clinton administration tried to fight on the cheap so they could pretend they weren't "really" a war, just like Iraq (and yes, she had a hand in such decisions - Bill and Hillary may not have been "co-presidents," but she damn sure had at least equal input into the electoral side of things, as borne out by several sources.) Afghanistan...disengaging from the Taliban was almost exclusively her decision, based solely on courting women voters in the 1998 mid-term elections.

 

Hillary Clinton isn't some UN 2020 NWO globalist politician with a metaphorical hard-on for conflict. She's a conniving B word motivated solely by self-interest.

 

And THAT'S why I hate her. Not because she's a woman, not because she's a Democrat, not because I'm a supporter of anyone else. Because she's the worst sort of amoral opportunist - she, the self-styled champion of civil rights, wrote legislation to keep Muslims from doing business in the US, for no other reason than to make a campaign issue out of it. You don't get more opportunist than that.

[Nanker]

[Magox]

 

You really give her too much credit. She has always - even as First Lady - viewed foreign policy only in terms of domestic electoral politics. Libya and Syria both were extensions of the "Arab Spring" that so appealed to the ignorant and short-sighted crowd that believes in "grassroots democracy" (and is too stupid to distinguish it from tribal warfare.) The internecine Yugoslavia wars, the Clinton administration tried to fight on the cheap so they could pretend they weren't "really" a war, just like Iraq (and yes, she had a hand in such decisions - Bill and Hillary may not have been "co-presidents," but she damn sure had at least equal input into the electoral side of things, as borne out by several sources.) Afghanistan...disengaging from the Taliban was almost exclusively her decision, based solely on courting women voters in the 1998 mid-term elections.

 

Hillary Clinton isn't some UN 2020 NWO globalist politician with a metaphorical hard-on for conflict. She's a conniving B word motivated solely by self-interest.

 

And THAT'S why I hate her. Not because she's a woman, not because she's a Democrat, not because I'm a supporter of anyone else. Because she's the worst sort of amoral opportunist - she, the self-styled champion of civil rights, wrote legislation to keep Muslims from doing business in the US, for no other reason than to make a campaign issue out of it. You don't get more opportunist than that.

 

 

Most politicians are political opportunists but she takes it to another level. There is no conspiracy here as you note, simply put her positions sway with the wind. She has no core, other than what is best for her political career, even though she does have a tendency for interventionism. She comes from the school of triangulation, it got her into trouble thinking that a more hawkish view would help garner her votes with independents, turned out she miscalculated her own party's base view of the Iraq war and the emergence of Obama.

 

Now she's trying to remake herself into some sort of progressive champion, she is no such thing. She's a lousy candidate, but she's got a hell of a turnout machine at her side and a godsend of an opponent. I predict she will end up being one of the most unpopular first-term presidents we've seen in a very long time. It wouldn't surprise me to see her approval rating slump into the 30's before her first year is out.

Edited October 10, 2016 by Magox

[Beef Jerky]

Which makes them idiots.

 

Not really they just think she would do a better job. No one is an idiot.

[keepthefaith]

Not really they just think she would do a better job. No one is an idiot.

We are a nation of many idiots and slouches.

 

[grinreaper]

http://truthfeed.com/bill-clintons-26-trips-to-sex-island-should-disqualify-hillary-from-the-presidency/28204/

 

Flight logs show Clinton took at least 26 sexy trips on the Lolita Express and reportedly ditched his secret service details five times to fly solo.

 

Jeffrey Epstein is a convicted sex offender who happens to be a hedge fund billionaire.

 

He is also one of Bill Clinton’s closest pals.

 

He was convicted in Florida of soliciting sex with minors, two of the victims were 13 and 14-years-old at the time.

 

During the investigation over 30 women were identified at Epstein’s victims.

 

However, in typical “billionaire fashion,” his lawyers worked out a “sweetheart deal” for their depraved client, and he served just over a year in a local jail, where he was allowed to leave daily to go to work – “hard time.”

 

To make a long, disgusting story short, Jeffrey Epstein is one of those “proud to be a perv” types. The kind of guy who revels in his wicked reputation and wears it like a badge of honor.

 

The Lolita Express is named after a controversial book and movie about a professor’s obsession with an underage girl.

 

Gee, way to fly under the radar, Epstein.

 

Lolita is a Boeing 727, outfitted as a salacious “Mile High Club” complete with sexy underage girls, booze, and a bed that’s reportedly used for “group sex with young girls.” Some of his girls are as young as 15-years-old. His harem consists of models, wannabe actresses, and attractive young girls lured by the sparkle of a billionaire lifestyle.

 

You’re wondering how Epstein gets away with all of this, right? Well, to avoid instantaneous arrest, Epstein refers to his prostitutes as “masseuses.” A trick he learned from those legit Asian “massage” joints you see in strip malls next to Panda Express.

 

Flight logs show that between 2001 and 2003 Bill Clinton was a passenger 26 times, traveling on extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by their initials or first names, including “Tatiana.”

 

Among those regularly traveling with Clinton were Epstein’s associates, or “partners in crime.” Ghislaine Maxwell, a New York socialite and Sarah Kellen, Epstein’s assistant, were both investigated by the FBI and Palm Beach Police for recruiting girls for sex aboard Epstein’s flying whore-house.

[Benjamin Franklin]

http://truthfeed.com/bill-clintons-26-trips-to-sex-island-should-disqualify-hillary-from-the-presidency/28204/

 

 

 

Flight logs show that between 2001 and 2003 Bill Clinton was a passenger 26 times, traveling on extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by their initials or first names, including “Tatiana.”

 

 

Interestingly, someone running for president also has significant ties to Epstein.

 

Sounds like Bill and Donald could have had some interesting golf chats after all.

 

By the way, is there any doubt that Slick Willy has said everything Trump said on those tapes (minus the infamous grabbing line)?

Edited October 11, 2016 by Benjamin Franklin

[Azalin]

 

 

I predict she will end up being one of the most unpopular first-term presidents we've seen in a very long time. It wouldn't surprise me to see her approval rating slump into the 30's before her first year is out.

 

If so, she'll be insulated from a lot of the criticism by being the first female president, just like the current president is for being the first African-American to hold the office.

[B-Man]

The Death of Compartmentalization

If there is one silver lining to the now-infamous Trump “grab” video, it should be the final death of the idea of “compartmentalization.”

 

If you remember the (first) Clinton years, this was one of the buzzwords used by defenders of Bill Clinton’s various sexual depravities and depradations – marital infidelity (Gennifer Flowers), sexual harassment of workplace subordinates (Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, the latter a star-struck intern barely out of college), unwanted groping (Kathleen Willey), possibly even rape (Juanita Broaddrick). The idea, promoted uniformly by Clinton flacks on cable TV and apologists in print, was that Clinton’s sexual misconduct and mistreatment of women – even while sitting at his desk in the Oval Office – was wholly separate from his public character and fitness for office, and that only bluenosed prudes could care what a man did to women outside the public eye. As the Baltimore Sun summarized in 1999:

 

Since Jan. 21, when the Washington Post first reported charges of Clinton’s affair with an intern, “compartmentalize” began to appear more frequently in the written record of this national scandal. Throughout 1998, scores of newspapers used the concept to attempt to make human sense of the rise and fall and rise and fall of William Jefferson Clinton….

 

In all its psycho-syllables, compartmentalization became a clean, clinical explanation for Clinton’s choices regarding White House intern Monica Lewinsky. And his prowess in this regard has been duly noted:

 

*“Americans have discovered in Bill Clinton an awesome capacity to compartmentalize and carry on.” – Syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman, January 1998. * “The president’s ability to ‘compartmentalise’ his life could be called legendary were it not so real.” – Manchester Guardian Weekly (England), Oct. 18, 1998.

 

 

Clinton defenders fanned out across the media to offer context for why it was OK for their man to treat women like disposable sex objects. The Washington Post looked for the psychological roots of this tendency in Clinton’s biography. Journalist Nina Burleigh famously said of Clinton that she’d be “happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.” The New York Observer’s Alexandra Jacobs celebrated Clinton’s chronic mistreatment of women as an icon of a sort of progress:

 

[C]haracter is an inhibiting constraint in this era; it keeps you from doing everything you want. Like our President, we don’t want to deny ourselves anything, we don’t want to be pinned down, we don’t want to do the hard work of integration. We all want to wriggle free. We want to present many versions of ourselves to everybody.

 

Well, 18 years later, the voices that urged us to compartmentalize Clinton’s sexual character from the rest of his character – including the bulk of Hillary Clinton’s senior staff, to say nothing of Mrs. Clinton’s own role in downplaying the scandals and attacking the women her husband had mistreated - now affect to be horrified that her opponent has been caught on tape treating women like disposable sex objects. This is who Trump is, they tell us; this says something about what kind of president he will be and what we’d have to tell our children if he was in the White House.

 

Well, welcome to the club. Better late than never?

 

As we’ve seen for years now, Democrats only ever learn the downside of their arguments after they have been turned against them. I suppose it won’t surprise me when these same voices turn around and resurrect the same old pro-Clinton arguments the instant it’s in their partisan advantage again to do so, but the rest of us should stand up and declare now: we were right, they were wrong, compartmentalization is nonsense, and it should be thrown permanently on the ash heap of history.

 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

Edited October 11, 2016 by B-Man

[Magox]

 

If so, she'll be insulated from a lot of the criticism by being the first female president, just like the current president is for being the first African-American to hold the office.

 

 

I don't know, this should be a time where here popularity is going up, partisans should be flocking to her and yet that isn't happening. Obama was stuck in the low 40's for a long time and I can tell you this, she'll never be as popular with her own base as Obama. Obama with as crappy of an economic and FP record as he had should have been in the 30's, but he was beloved by his base and they kept him in the 40's. Clinton has no such reservoir of support, so once things begin to go downhill for her, that support won't be there and she'll fall into the 30's.

 

By the way, look at Obama's approval ratings now, he's in the mid to high 50's. And you know why? Trump and Hillary. People look at these two ***** and think to themselves, "Maybe Obama wasn't so bad?"

[DC Tom]

 

 

I don't know, this should be a time where here popularity is going up, partisans should be flocking to her and yet that isn't happening. Obama was stuck in the low 40's for a long time and I can tell you this, she'll never be as popular with her own base as Obama. Obama with as crappy of an economic and FP record as he had should have been in the 30's, but he was beloved by his base and they kept him in the 40's. Clinton has no such reservoir of support, so once things begin to go downhill for her, that support won't be there and she'll fall into the 30's.

 

By the way, look at Obama's approval ratings now, he's in the mid to high 50's. And you know why? Trump and Hillary. People look at these two ***** and think to themselves, "Maybe Obama wasn't so bad?"

 

I think you're underestimating her support. Her loyalists are unbelievably blind.

[Azalin]

 

 

I don't know, this should be a time where here popularity is going up, partisans should be flocking to her and yet that isn't happening. Obama was stuck in the low 40's for a long time and I can tell you this, she'll never be as popular with her own base as Obama. Obama with as crappy of an economic and FP record as he had should have been in the 30's, but he was beloved by his base and they kept him in the 40's. Clinton has no such reservoir of support, so once things begin to go downhill for her, that support won't be there and she'll fall into the 30's.

 

By the way, look at Obama's approval ratings now, he's in the mid to high 50's. And you know why? Trump and Hillary. People look at these two ***** and think to themselves, "Maybe Obama wasn't so bad?"

 

She will get the same benefit of celebration in the major news outlets that Obama has. That's why the president is enjoying the approval numbers that he has - he's outspent Bush by nearly a factor of two, we're still in both Iraq and Afghanistan, we now have ISIS, the economy is even worse, and race relations are at the lowest point since I was a young child, yet the public perception is being driven by the major news outlets, so things are way better than during Bush 43's term as far as they're concerned. I see no reason at all why Hillary will be treated any differently.

[Magox]

 

She will get the same benefit of celebration in the major news outlets that Obama has. That's why the president is enjoying the approval numbers that he has - he's outspent Bush by nearly a factor of two, we're still in both Iraq and Afghanistan, we now have ISIS, the economy is even worse, and race relations are at the lowest point since I was a young child, yet the public perception is being driven by the major news outlets, so things are way better than during Bush 43's term as far as they're concerned. I see no reason at all why Hillary will be treated any differently.

 

 

Because the base doesn't like Hillary the way they like Obama. It's not even close. Obama has undying devotion from the AA community and millennials believe him to be a cool cat. The AA community won't be quite as forgiving to Hillary and millennials do not like Hillary in nearly the same light they see Obama. I see it all the time, I have plenty of liberal friends out west and the support that I've seen for Hillary is almost non existent compared to what it is for Obama.

 

I think you're underestimating her support. Her loyalists are unbelievably blind.

 

I know she has her loyalists, what I'm saying is that the reservoir of support isn't as deep as it for Obama.

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

I think you're underestimating her support. Her loyalists are unbelievably blind.

He is underestimating Hillary's loyalists.

 

They will stick together with Hillary because idiots like you want to blow us back to a third world country playing w/fire by voting for Trump:

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-clinton-jail-ex-prosecutors-slam-229547

 

(I know link is from Politico, but put that past ya and digest the fundamentals here)

 

I am not saying she hasn't done nothing wrong. Something is inherently wrong here w/the message Trump is duping the rubes in the RedStates with. Hitch your horse to that team if you want to see things burn.

 

If we really are NOT an idiocracy, we will let the smoke clear & push this one to 2020. I know, kick the can down the road.

 

The loyalists will come out of the woodwork. And we all know who they are, the one's w/@ least half a brain. ;-) ;-)

 

"Tanking" is okay in sports, but not w/our country.

 

You really want to see a constitutional crisis? Well, you have more guts than I.

 

 

Because the base doesn't like Hillary the way they like Obama. It's not even close. Obama has undying devotion from the AA community and millennials believe him to be a cool cat. The AA community won't be quite as forgiving to Hillary and millennials do not like Hillary in nearly the same light they see Obama. I see it all the time, I have plenty of liberal friends out west and the support that I've seen for Hillary is almost non existent compared to what it is for Obama.

 

 

I know she has her loyalists, what I'm saying is that the reservoir of support isn't as deep as it for Obama.

They won't get the yips when they pull that curtain shut.

[ALF]

Some of the material about the Clintons the media ignores , very strange

 

SOURCES:

Aldrich, Gary. Unlimited Access.

Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 1998. ISBN 0-89526-454-4 (p. 139).

Andersen, Christopher. American Evita: Hillary Clinton's Path to Power.

New York: HarperCollins, 2004. ISBN 0-06-056254-4 (pp. 90, 258-259).

Andersen, Christopher. Bill and Hillary: The Marriage.

New York: William Morrow, 1999. ISBN 0-688-16755-1 (p. 100).

Brock, David. "Living with the Clintons."

The American Spectator. January 1994.

Brock, David. The Seduction of Hillary Rodham.

New York: Free Press, 1996. ISBN 0-684-83451-0 (p. 333-334).

Brock, David. "Confessions of a Right-Wing Hit Man."

Esquire. July 1997 (p. 52).

Brock, David. "Letter to the President."

Esquire. April 1998 (p. 60).

Califano Jr., Joseph A. Inside: A Public and Private Life.

New York: Public Affairs, 2004. ISBN 1-58648-230-0 (p. 212-213).

Clinton, Hillary Rodham. "Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Iraqi Elections."

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233875 28 January 2005.

Couric, Katie. "Hillary Clinton Talks Politics and Future."

Dateline NBC. 16 April 2004.

Fouhy, Beth. "San Francisco Rolls Out the Red Carpet for the Clintons."

San Diego Union-Tribune. 29 June 2004.

Harris, John F. The Survivor: Bill Clinton in the White House.

New York: Random House, 2005. ISBN 0-375-50847-3 (pp. 98-99, 382-383).

Kelly, Michael. "Saint Hillary."

The New York Times. 23 May 1993 (Magazine; p. A1).

Klein, Edward. The Truth About Hillary.

New York: Sentinel HC, 2005. ISBN 1-59523-006-8 (p. 15).

Lerner, Michael. The Politics of Meaning: Restoring Hope and Possibility in an Age of Cynicism.

New York: Perseus Books, 1996. ISBN 0-201-15489-7 (p. 311-312).

Limbacher, Carl. Hillary's Scheme.

New York: Three Rivers Press, 2003. ISBN 1-4000-5295-5 (p. 89).

Milton, Joyce. The First Partner: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

New York: William Morrow, 1999. ISBN 0-688-15501-4 (p. 259).

Patterson, Robert. Dereliction of Duty.

Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2003. ISBN 0-895-26140-5 (pp. 71-72).

Woodward, Bob. The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House.

New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994. ISBN 0-671-86486-6 (pp. 108-110)

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/hildabeast.asp

http://truthfeed.com/8-actual-hillary-quotes/8825/

> Hillary Clinton goes to a gifted-student primary school in New York to talk about the world. After her talk,

> she offers question time.
>
> One little boy puts up his hand. Hillary asks him what his name is. "Kenneth," he say
> "And what is your question, Kenneth?" she asks.
>
> "I have three questions," he says.
> "1st -- whatever happened in Benghazi?"
> "2nd -- why would you run for president if you are not capable of handling two e-mail accounts?
> "And, 3rd -- whatever happened to the missing six-billion-dollars while you were Secretary of State?"
>
> Just then the bell rings for recess. Hillary informs the kiddies that they will continue after recess.
>
> When they resume Hillary says, "Okay, where were we? Oh, that's right, question time. Who has a question?
>
> A different boy -- little Johnny -- puts his hand up.
>
> Hillary points to him and asks him what his name is. "Johnny," he says.
>
> "And what is your question, Johnny?" she asks.
>
> "I have five questions," he says.
> "1st -- whatever happened in Benghazi?
> "2nd -- why would you run for president if you are not capable of handling two e-mail accounts?
> "3rd -- whatever happened to the missing six-billion dollars while you were Secretary of State?
> "4th -- why did the recess bell go off 20 minutes early?"
> "And 5th -- where's Kenneth?"
>

Edited October 11, 2016 by ALF

[B-Man]

Modulating outrage over four dead bodies doesn't seem quite right somehow.

 

 

 

Clinton staff debated how much ‘outrage’ to show lawmakers over Benghazi, emails show
Washington Times, by Dave Boyer

 

Original Article

[ExiledInIllinois]

Some of the material about the Clintons the media ignores , very strange

 

SOURCES:

 

Aldrich, Gary. Unlimited Access.

Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 1998. ISBN 0-89526-454-4 (p. 139).

 

Andersen, Christopher. American Evita: Hillary Clinton's Path to Power.

New York: HarperCollins, 2004. ISBN 0-06-056254-4 (pp. 90, 258-259).

 

Andersen, Christopher. Bill and Hillary: The Marriage.

New York: William Morrow, 1999. ISBN 0-688-16755-1 (p. 100).

 

Brock, David. "Living with the Clintons."

The American Spectator. January 1994.

 

Brock, David. The Seduction of Hillary Rodham.

New York: Free Press, 1996. ISBN 0-684-83451-0 (p. 333-334).

 

Brock, David. "Confessions of a Right-Wing Hit Man."

Esquire. July 1997 (p. 52).

 

Brock, David. "Letter to the President."

Esquire. April 1998 (p. 60).

 

Califano Jr., Joseph A. Inside: A Public and Private Life.

New York: Public Affairs, 2004. ISBN 1-58648-230-0 (p. 212-213).

 

Clinton, Hillary Rodham. "Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Iraqi Elections."

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233875 28 January 2005.

 

Couric, Katie. "Hillary Clinton Talks Politics and Future."

Dateline NBC. 16 April 2004.

 

Fouhy, Beth. "San Francisco Rolls Out the Red Carpet for the Clintons."

San Diego Union-Tribune. 29 June 2004.

 

Harris, John F. The Survivor: Bill Clinton in the White House.

New York: Random House, 2005. ISBN 0-375-50847-3 (pp. 98-99, 382-383).

 

Kelly, Michael. "Saint Hillary."

The New York Times. 23 May 1993 (Magazine; p. A1).

 

Klein, Edward. The Truth About Hillary.

New York: Sentinel HC, 2005. ISBN 1-59523-006-8 (p. 15).

 

Lerner, Michael. The Politics of Meaning: Restoring Hope and Possibility in an Age of Cynicism.

New York: Perseus Books, 1996. ISBN 0-201-15489-7 (p. 311-312).

 

Limbacher, Carl. Hillary's Scheme.

New York: Three Rivers Press, 2003. ISBN 1-4000-5295-5 (p. 89).

 

Milton, Joyce. The First Partner: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

New York: William Morrow, 1999. ISBN 0-688-15501-4 (p. 259).

 

Patterson, Robert. Dereliction of Duty.

Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2003. ISBN 0-895-26140-5 (pp. 71-72).

 

Woodward, Bob. The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House.

New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994. ISBN 0-671-86486-6 (pp. 108-110)

 

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/hildabeast.asp

 

http://truthfeed.com/8-actual-hillary-quotes/8825/

 

 

 

 

> Hillary Clinton goes to a gifted-student primary school in New York to talk about the world. After her talk,

> she offers question time.

>

> One little boy puts up his hand. Hillary asks him what his name is. "Kenneth," he say

> "And what is your question, Kenneth?" she asks.

>

> "I have three questions," he says.

> "1st -- whatever happened in Benghazi?"

> "2nd -- why would you run for president if you are not capable of handling two e-mail accounts?

> "And, 3rd -- whatever happened to the missing six-billion-dollars while you were Secretary of State?"

>

> Just then the bell rings for recess. Hillary informs the kiddies that they will continue after recess.

>

> When they resume Hillary says, "Okay, where were we? Oh, that's right, question time. Who has a question?

>

> A different boy -- little Johnny -- puts his hand up.

>

> Hillary points to him and asks him what his name is. "Johnny," he says.

>

> "And what is your question, Johnny?" she asks.

>

> "I have five questions," he says.

> "1st -- whatever happened in Benghazi?

> "2nd -- why would you run for president if you are not capable of handling two e-mail accounts?

> "3rd -- whatever happened to the missing six-billion dollars while you were Secretary of State?

> "4th -- why did the recess bell go off 20 minutes early?"

> "And 5th -- where's Kenneth?"

>

It's strange because like USAToday said: "Anybody but Trump". Unfortunately, there is only one viable option to avoid the "siren song of the dangerous demagogue"

 

I am all for a DC outsider coming and changing things. That simply isn't Trump. Trump is a reckless megalomaniac. I know people can't stand that "evil witch", but she doesn't break apart what our country was founded on. She most certainly bends that foundation, but doesn't break apart.

 

I get what guys like DCTom say too... About getting Trump in there to teach everybody a dirty lesson. What I don't agree with him is on how it will end. It is sure to be ugly if Trump wins, and IMO irreversible.

 

Hillary is revetsible... She doesn't blow up our foundation.

 

Trump could have just stopped at: more investigation will be done on her.

 

After this second debate... For the first time, I am worried for our country with the things he is saying. He is a dangerous demagogue. She isn't.

Edited October 11, 2016 by ExiledInIllinois

[ALF]

At this point I won't vote for either one.

 

What makes me mad that Independents (large % of voters) were not allowed to vote in primary, at least in NYS.

 

I would have voted for Kasich, my wife and son would have voted Sanders.

Edited October 11, 2016 by ALF

[grinreaper]

It's strange because like USAToday said: "Anybody but Trump". Unfortunately, there is only one viable option to avoid the "siren song of the dangerous demagogue"

 

I am all for a DC outsider coming and changing things. That simply isn't Trump. Trump is a reckless megalomaniac. I know people can't stand that "evil witch", but she doesn't break apart what our country was founded on. She most certainly bends that foundation, but doesn't break apart.

 

I get what guys like DCTom say too... About getting Trump in there to teach everybody a dirty lesson. What I don't agree with him is on how it will end. It is sure to be ugly if Trump wins, and IMO irreversible.

 

Hillary is revetsible... She doesn't blow up our foundation.

 

Trump could have just stopped at: more investigation will be done on her.

 

After this second debate... For the first time, I am worried for our country with the things he is saying. He is a dangerous demagogue. She isn't.

Two weeks ago you stated that you were voting for Trump.

[ExiledInIllinois]

At this point I can't vote for either one.

So if we all do that we push it to an end game... Do you want to risk the danger for your individual victory?

 

Pick one you want to go with the 4 available and know that your choice had counted. If you want Trump, do it for your (IMO, crazy)reasons... Not for destructive reasons.

 

I made the case where Clinton status quo is better than a full blown tank.

Edited October 11, 2016 by ExiledInIllinois