The Next President of the United States: II

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
822

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I think that what usmc is trying to articulate is that if Hillary Clinton were to run as a Republican against Bernie Sanders as a Democrat, Clinton would still not be worth voting for. Do those disagreeing with him believe that she would be worth voting for if only she were to run as a Republican? I’m almost sure that he has already stated that he does not believe that Trump is any more “conservative”(not even sure what the word means in a political context anymore) than Clinton.[/quote]

Believing Trump is in any way comparable to Hillary Clinton is preposterous.

824

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I think that what usmc is trying to articulate is that if Hillary Clinton were to run as a Republican against Bernie Sanders as a Democrat, Clinton would still not be worth voting for. Do those disagreeing with him believe that she would be worth voting for if only she were to run as a Republican? I’m almost sure that he has already stated that he does not believe that Trump is any more “conservative”(not even sure what the word means in a political context anymore) than Clinton.[/quote]

Believing Trump is in any way comparable to Hillary Clinton is preposterous. [/quote]

That may be, but not voting for him is perfectly reasonable if one believes them to be very similar(which, if I’m not mistaken, usmc does). If Trump wants his vote, then Trump needs to convince him. Usmc is certainly under no obligation to vote for him merely because he wins the Team R nomination, and any problems from a Hillary presidency should not be blamed on those who elect not to vote for a lesser evil(in their eyes). If the taxpayers stop voting for the position, how much legitimacy would the President have?

(Personally, I’m all for Trump becoming President. Who cares? The problem with the Federal Government is not who won the last election; the problem is the power that person is given.(Gasp! Maybe making the runner up the Vice President made sense!))

825

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I think that what usmc is trying to articulate is that if Hillary Clinton were to run as a Republican against Bernie Sanders as a Democrat, Clinton would still not be worth voting for. Do those disagreeing with him believe that she would be worth voting for if only she were to run as a Republican? I’m almost sure that he has already stated that he does not believe that Trump is any more “conservative”(not even sure what the word means in a political context anymore) than Clinton.[/quote]

Believing Trump is in any way comparable to Hillary Clinton is preposterous. [/quote]

That may be, but not voting for him is perfectly reasonable if one believes them to be very similar(which, if I’m not mistaken, usmc does). If Trump wants his vote, then Trump needs to convince him. Usmc is certainly under no obligation to vote for him merely because he wins the Team R nomination, and any problems from a Hillary presidency should not be blamed on those who elect not to vote for a lesser evil(in their eyes). If the taxpayers stop voting for the position, how much legitimacy would the President have?

(Personally, I’m all for Trump becoming President. Who cares? The problem with the Federal Government is not who won the last election; the problem is the power that person is given.(Gasp! Maybe making the runner up the Vice President made sense!))[/quote]

I never suggested he was obligated to vote for anybody. But anybody not voting for him under the assumption that he will be just as bad as Hillary probably has no business voting in the first place.

For the record, I don’t actually think that is what USMC is assuming. I may be wrong, though.

826

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I think that what usmc is trying to articulate is that if Hillary Clinton were to run as a Republican against Bernie Sanders as a Democrat, Clinton would still not be worth voting for. Do those disagreeing with him believe that she would be worth voting for if only she were to run as a Republican? I’m almost sure that he has already stated that he does not believe that Trump is any more “conservative”(not even sure what the word means in a political context anymore) than Clinton.[/quote]

Believing Trump is in any way comparable to Hillary Clinton is preposterous. [/quote]

Hillary Clinton and her rapist husband are straight-up two of the most despicable Americans since Benedict Arnold. My contempt is palpable.[/quote]

Yes, they really are despicable people.

It’s amazing how they are still relevant after 20+ years of lying, cheating and most likely stealing. I’m thrilled when I see that Hillary’s email scandal has driven down her poll numbers. I also think that the Benghazi hearings will drive them down further. She has nothing to offer the country except more lies and investigations should she be victorious.

I cannot think of a republican that I would not vote for over her. I’d vote for my semi-crazy Neighbor Hal over Hillary Clinton. We need to drive the proverbial stake through the heart of the Clinton campaign and pray that she never rises again!

Absolutely Donald Trump (far from my first pick) would be better than Hillary. My gosh there should be no question about this. We cannot afford to put the Clintons back into power, especially after the remarkably poor job that Obama has done. There really is only so much that our country can take relative to debt, poor decision making and left wing wacko judges legislating from the bench.

This is a far more important election than people think.

827

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I think that what usmc is trying to articulate is that if Hillary Clinton were to run as a Republican against Bernie Sanders as a Democrat, Clinton would still not be worth voting for. Do those disagreeing with him believe that she would be worth voting for if only she were to run as a Republican? I’m almost sure that he has already stated that he does not believe that Trump is any more “conservative”(not even sure what the word means in a political context anymore) than Clinton.[/quote]

Believing Trump is in any way comparable to Hillary Clinton is preposterous. [/quote]

Yes. Trump is a blustering buffoon. HRC is competent at least, notwithstanding any ethical shortcomings she may possess.

828

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I think that what usmc is trying to articulate is that if Hillary Clinton were to run as a Republican against Bernie Sanders as a Democrat, Clinton would still not be worth voting for. Do those disagreeing with him believe that she would be worth voting for if only she were to run as a Republican? I’m almost sure that he has already stated that he does not believe that Trump is any more “conservative”(not even sure what the word means in a political context anymore) than Clinton.[/quote]

Believing Trump is in any way comparable to Hillary Clinton is preposterous. [/quote]

Yes. Trump is a blustering buffoon. HRC is competent at least, notwithstanding any ethical shortcomings she may possess. [/quote]

Competent?

She certainly isn’t a competent liar.

She certainly was not a competent Secretary of State.

Apparently she wasn’t even a competent wife.

What exactly is she competent at? Having a famous name? Being the wife of a former President? She has no stellar accomplishments on her own. If her name were Martha Brown no one would even give her a second look. But the pathetic woman has been lusting for power for about 23 years now so she somehow matters?

As for Trump being a buffoon. Many think that because of his brash demeanor and his reality show history. But the man is worth 10 billion dollars or so. which takes plenty of desirable traits such as intelligence, discipline, patients, negotiating ability and much more. All positive traits in a leader.

No question Hillary Clinton would be the weakest candidate that the democrats have fielded since Michael Dukakis was trounced by George H.W. Bush back in 1988.

Almost regardless of who the republicans choose Hillary (if she is the nominee) will go down to defeat!

829

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I think that what usmc is trying to articulate is that if Hillary Clinton were to run as a Republican against Bernie Sanders as a Democrat, Clinton would still not be worth voting for. Do those disagreeing with him believe that she would be worth voting for if only she were to run as a Republican? I’m almost sure that he has already stated that he does not believe that Trump is any more “conservative”(not even sure what the word means in a political context anymore) than Clinton.[/quote]

Believing Trump is in any way comparable to Hillary Clinton is preposterous. [/quote]

Yes. Trump is a blustering buffoon. HRC is competent at least, notwithstanding any ethical shortcomings she may possess. [/quote]

Competent?

She certainly isn’t a competent liar.

She certainly was not a competent Secretary of State.

Apparently she wasn’t even a competent wife.

What exactly is she competent at? Having a famous name? Being the wife of a former President? She has no stellar accomplishments on her own. If her name were Martha Brown no one would even give her a second look. But the pathetic woman has been lusting for power for about 23 years now so she somehow matters?

As for Trump being a buffoon. Many think that because of his brash demeanor and his reality show history. But the man is worth 10 billion dollars or so. which takes plenty of desirable traits such as intelligence, discipline, patients, negotiating ability and much more. All positive traits in a leader.

No question Hillary Clinton would be the weakest candidate that the democrats have fielded since Michael Dukakis was trounced by George H.W. Bush back in 1988.

Almost regardless of who the republicans choose Hillary (if she is the nominee) will go down to defeat!
[/quote]

Was Hillary Clinton a good secretary of state?

I am fortunate enough to regularly interact with former and current members of the defense, diplomatic, and intelligence communities though my studies and work. HRC is respected among practitioners for her grasp of international affairs and US foreign policy. The same can’t be said for many of the GOP candidates. Trump is widely regarded by subject matter experts as a buffoon that belongs nowhere near policy making.

830

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I think that what usmc is trying to articulate is that if Hillary Clinton were to run as a Republican against Bernie Sanders as a Democrat, Clinton would still not be worth voting for. Do those disagreeing with him believe that she would be worth voting for if only she were to run as a Republican? I’m almost sure that he has already stated that he does not believe that Trump is any more “conservative”(not even sure what the word means in a political context anymore) than Clinton.[/quote]

Believing Trump is in any way comparable to Hillary Clinton is preposterous. [/quote]

Yes. Trump is a blustering buffoon. HRC is competent at least, notwithstanding any ethical shortcomings she may possess. [/quote]

Competent?

She certainly isn’t a competent liar.

She certainly was not a competent Secretary of State.

Apparently she wasn’t even a competent wife.

What exactly is she competent at? Having a famous name? Being the wife of a former President? She has no stellar accomplishments on her own. If her name were Martha Brown no one would even give her a second look. But the pathetic woman has been lusting for power for about 23 years now so she somehow matters?

As for Trump being a buffoon. Many think that because of his brash demeanor and his reality show history. But the man is worth 10 billion dollars or so. which takes plenty of desirable traits such as intelligence, discipline, patients, negotiating ability and much more. All positive traits in a leader.

No question Hillary Clinton would be the weakest candidate that the democrats have fielded since Michael Dukakis was trounced by George H.W. Bush back in 1988.

Almost regardless of who the republicans choose Hillary (if she is the nominee) will go down to defeat!
[/quote]

Was Hillary Clinton a good secretary of state?

I am fortunate enough to regularly interact with former and current members of the defense, diplomatic, and intelligence communities though my studies and work. HRC is respected among practitioners for her grasp of international affairs and US foreign policy. The same can’t be said for many of the GOP candidates. Trump is widely regarded by subject matter experts as a buffoon that belongs nowhere near policy making. [/quote]

LOL the Professor of Foreign affairs at Bard College wrote that piece. One liberal patting another on the back, or should I say trying to pat another on the back.

But even so he writes, “she struggled to bring together the different elements of her vision into a coherent set of policies.”

He can’t even name one SIGNIFICANT accomplishment of her days as Secretary of State.

I can name some failures. Let’s start with Benghazi. Funny he didn’t go into any detail about that–odd? No not at all this is what the academic set does for one another.

The public knows exactly who and what she is and will soundly reject her should the democrats be stupid enough to give her the nomination.

Bet?

One more point, there are only a few hundred billionaires in the world. Calling Donald Trump a buffoon says more about you than it does him. What qualities did Hillary Clinton have to display as a failed Secretary of State and an international liar of the first order?

We know somewhat what it takes to become a billionaire, that you and your academic buddy’s don’t like him causes me to give him more credit than I already have.

Obama and your academic ilk have proven yourselves failures on the world stage --go away now and let the republicans clean up your mess!

834

[quote]pushharder wrote:
One good thing about an HRC presidency is the White House silverware might get returned.[/quote]

LOL

835

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I think that what usmc is trying to articulate is that if Hillary Clinton were to run as a Republican against Bernie Sanders as a Democrat, Clinton would still not be worth voting for. Do those disagreeing with him believe that she would be worth voting for if only she were to run as a Republican? I’m almost sure that he has already stated that he does not believe that Trump is any more “conservative”(not even sure what the word means in a political context anymore) than Clinton.[/quote]

Believing Trump is in any way comparable to Hillary Clinton is preposterous. [/quote]

Yes. Trump is a blustering buffoon. HRC is competent at least, notwithstanding any ethical shortcomings she may possess. [/quote]

Because blustering buffoons successfully create and maintain multibillion dollar empires. Sure.

And because “ethical shortcomings” that blow up in your face over and over and over again do not denote buffoonery. Uh huh.

836

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I think that what usmc is trying to articulate is that if Hillary Clinton were to run as a Republican against Bernie Sanders as a Democrat, Clinton would still not be worth voting for. Do those disagreeing with him believe that she would be worth voting for if only she were to run as a Republican? I’m almost sure that he has already stated that he does not believe that Trump is any more “conservative”(not even sure what the word means in a political context anymore) than Clinton.[/quote]

Believing Trump is in any way comparable to Hillary Clinton is preposterous. [/quote]

Yes. Trump is a blustering buffoon. HRC is competent at least, notwithstanding any ethical shortcomings she may possess. [/quote]

Her ethical shortcomings completely submerge any alleged competency.[/quote]

Her email server idiocy alone is buffoonery enough to deep six any supposed competency for the highest and most sensitive office in the land.

837

Bernie Sanders will be our next president. Economy is turning bad and everyone will be wanting in on government handouts and socialist free stuff.

838

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I think that what usmc is trying to articulate is that if Hillary Clinton were to run as a Republican against Bernie Sanders as a Democrat, Clinton would still not be worth voting for. Do those disagreeing with him believe that she would be worth voting for if only she were to run as a Republican? I’m almost sure that he has already stated that he does not believe that Trump is any more “conservative”(not even sure what the word means in a political context anymore) than Clinton.[/quote]

Believing Trump is in any way comparable to Hillary Clinton is preposterous. [/quote]

Yes. Trump is a blustering buffoon. HRC is competent at least, notwithstanding any ethical shortcomings she may possess. [/quote]

Because blustering buffoons successfully create and maintain multibillion dollar empires. Sure.

And because “ethical shortcomings” that blow up in your face over and over and over again do not denote buffoonery. Uh huh.

[/quote]

Consult your dictionary over the definition of buffoon. He inherited his real estate empire. Pretty difficult to fuck up a windfall that prodigious. The United States isn’t a business, it’s a nation-state. The man is in favor of a Neo-Smoot-Hawly act that would prove devastating to the US and global economy. Trump’s public behavior alone makes him uniquely unsuited to be the chief diplomat of the United States and have access to the nuclear football. He may be financially successful, but he has zero grasp of history, economics, politics, or strategy. He isn’t an expert, a dilettante, or even a novice. He’s completely ignorant of high politics.

839

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I think that what usmc is trying to articulate is that if Hillary Clinton were to run as a Republican against Bernie Sanders as a Democrat, Clinton would still not be worth voting for. Do those disagreeing with him believe that she would be worth voting for if only she were to run as a Republican? I’m almost sure that he has already stated that he does not believe that Trump is any more “conservative”(not even sure what the word means in a political context anymore) than Clinton.[/quote]

Believing Trump is in any way comparable to Hillary Clinton is preposterous. [/quote]

Yes. Trump is a blustering buffoon. HRC is competent at least, notwithstanding any ethical shortcomings she may possess. [/quote]

Because blustering buffoons successfully create and maintain multibillion dollar empires. Sure.

And because “ethical shortcomings” that blow up in your face over and over and over again do not denote buffoonery. Uh huh.

[/quote]

Consult your dictionary over the definition of buffoon. He inherited his real estate empire. Pretty difficult to fuck up a windfall that prodigious. The United States isn’t a business, it’s a nation-state. The man is in favor of a Neo-Smoot-Hawly act that would prove devastating to the US and global economy. Trump’s public behavior alone makes him uniquely unsuited to be the chief diplomat of the United States and have access to the nuclear football. He may be financially successful, but he has zero grasp of history, economics, politics, or strategy. He isn’t an expert, a dilettante, or even a novice. He’s completely ignorant of high politics. [/quote]

I don’t need to consult a dictionary, guy.

You’ve never run a business, have you? Clearly not. He turned 40 million into 10 billion. Receiving money is one thing, multiplying it 250fold and holding onto it all, while adding an enormous amount of value to our economy, is not something to be dismissed. It also demonstrates that he is highly competent in a wide range of disciplines and knows how to assemble a team of advisors and confidants to help him succeed. However, he doesn’t have to clear that bar for me. All I said was that he would be better for the USA than would Clinton. He would. Period. Clinton is a disaster.

Besides that, I don’t care what kind of knowledge of “high politics” Hillary Clinton has. There are a hundred European politicians that have deep knowledge of “high politics” who would be terrible choices to run our country. I know you worship at the altar of the K Street insider elite. These are the same assholes who run the Republican party right now. Left or right, these guys are he biggest threat our country has faced since the Cold War. At this point, someone from outside of the incestuous political cadre might actually invigorate and help to restore our crumbling post-Constitutional republic.

Of course, given your avatar, it should be of no surprise why you carry so much water for Clinton. She’s an excellent successor to that master of “high politics.” Me, I want what’s actually best for our nation. Trump ain’t it, I know that. But Clinton is what would actually be worst.

840

Trump is a complete buffoon, and the fact that GOPers continue to stand in defense of him is a sure sign the party is headed in the wrong direction. It’s frankly embarrassing.

That he is a billionaire is virtually meaningless. Tons of pop musicians run financial empires - are they in high esteem among “conservatives”?

Trump should have laughed at and shown the door. Instead, “conservatives” (scare quotes intentional) keep rallying to his defense when anyone calls him what he is - a clown.

841

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Trump is a complete buffoon, and the fact that GOPers continue to stand in defense of him is a sure sign the party is headed in the wrong direction. It’s frankly embarrassing.

That he is a billionaire is virtually meaningless. Tons of pop musicians run financial empires - are they in high esteem among “conservatives”?

Trump should have laughed at and shown the door. Instead, “conservatives” (scare quotes intentional) keep rallying to his defense when anyone calls him what he is - a clown.[/quote]

So if you had to vote for him or Clinton, who would you choose, t?