I think it’s normal to hold the person or party you identify with to a higher standard. I, for one, have always voted Republican. Every choice down the line in every election was for the R. This will be the first time that doesn’t happen and it’s because Trump is that bad of a choice.
Hillary never had my vote so there’s really no reason for me to bash her. I think she should be standing trial for, at the very least, gross negligence, but probably also perjury. Based on what I’ve read and if I was on the Jury she’d get a guilty vote from me too.
This is why I will vote for McMullin or more likely Johnson. I don’t think he’s “Liberal as hell”. His record in New Mexico disproves that to me. I personally think people just like to say that because it makes them feel better about their vote for Trump.
So is Hillary Clinton should we not question her foundation or private server?
And this is really it. Everybody wants to talk about everything else. Who’s less trustworthy? They both lie whenever it suits them (he lies even when it doesn’t suit him). Who’s the worse person? Well, he’s been credibly alleged to be guilty of sexual assault by thirteen women, so in my book he wins there. Whose foundation is more corrupt? Hers offers her much more opportunity for corruption and influence-peddling, but it also does actually charitable things, whereas his is not a real charity at all and, like everything else he does, is an utter scam from root to fruit. And so on.
But it doesn’t matter, because his first sin – the one underlying all the others, including his morally repugnant flirtations with Putinism and fascism and war-crime advocacy – is stupidity. Unprecedented, unarguable, can’t-speak-adult-English stupidity. To hear him speak aloud is to enter the addled mind of a confused child who has never – never – thought seriously about policy, government, or world affairs. Never in American history has someone so stupid come so close to real power, and this is the fact underlying everything else, driving his campaign and its exigencies.
The moment it was determined that CNN aided in giving Hillary questions in advance to those debates, along with having people who moderated debates and donated to the Clintons, I would gladly wipe my ass with those scientific polls. CNN has shown itself to be nothing more than cheerleaders for Hillary, they cannot be remotely considered as being unbiased.
Trump did screw up by not having a ground game, not sure what he was thinking. He was probably trying to win on the cheap.
[quote=“MaximusB, post:4584, topic:218984, full:true”]
The moment it was determined that CNN aided in giving Hillary questions in advance to those debates, along with having people who moderated debates and donated to the Clintons, I would gladly wipe my ass with those scientific polls. CNN has shown itself to be nothing more than cheerleaders for Hillary, they cannot be remotely considered as being unbiased.[/quote]
That doesn’t really have anything to do with scientific polling, but that’s fine. You can refer yourself to every other scientific poll of the debates, each of which found that Clinton won.
And this is damning. The stakes couldn’t be higher, and he can’t be bothered to orchestrate a functional strategy and create a top-notch organization to close the deal?
Why would I want anyone like this to run the most powerful organization in the world?
Ideology is important, but the presidency is still a job, in need of one Hell of an executive.
Trump’s ideology is awful, but beyond even that, he doesn’t have the chops for the job.
The stories are definitely out there. From what I understand, Trump’s litigiousness scared the sources off, and people decided the election was safe enough not to push. (Woman who signed an NDA is an open rumor that Rick Wilson and Liz Mair talked about pretty extensively.)
Edit: the lead Wilson gave to a journalist had something to do with what’s described here: