Trump

Idris

mrussel1 said:

Idris said:

mrussel1 said:

Idris said:

mrussel1 said:

Idris said:

mrussel1 said:

Real revolutions are rarely the solution. How many true revolutions have been bloodless? Maybe the Glorious Revolution (appropriately misnamed)? Revolution for the sake of what? Is that going to eliminate the Israeli settlements? What are you fighting for precisely?

a voting non violent revolution to change the Path of destruction and hegemony we have been on for years. (again, it's done by voting and holding our leaders accountable)

Yes it will end the Israeli settlements, because for one. If we do not elect pro israeli folks, who continue to fund the Israeli army etc. Obvi, they will not be able to continue to build.

When we elect people who refuse to be critical of Israel, and then send them billions of dollars and weapons. Of course, what is gonna change?

When we stand at the UN and back Israel till the end? Course, what will change.

Everyone is a friggin special interest today.

We need to hold our leaders accountable. Start with that. It's really not that difficult.

Again, nothing changes because of us. The voters. We demand nothing, and give them everything.

People worried about how the media will show them, destroyed by the right/left wing media.

Listen to that..

The news should just be news. Not slanted view points. CNN, Fox its all bullshit. But we take it as pure news. It is NOT.

Then you have these media outlets hosting presidential debates...Who gave them the power? Who allows it to continue? We do.

What do you mean "hold them accountable"? That's very ambiguous. We have elections, impeachment articles, etc.

When they break international law, I dunno, when they drop bombs on innocent people...Hold them accountable. Courts, punish, get it? We have elections, yes and we (again) vote for people who do not truly represent us, but their own(?) interests and/or the interests of corporations.

Obama refused to go after W Bush on war crimes, and we supported that. So sure we have outlets to use. But we don't use them (I'm just repeating myself at this point)

If you were to make the argument that there were specific US laws that the administration broke, I could support that but it's still useless. The chance of conviction would be low due to executive privilege and other bedrock constitutional privileges afforded the office. And we're sure as hell not sending an ex-president to the Hague for trial. Additionally, remember that the Union didn't even prosecute Davis or Stephens for treason.

Start Fresh. Current President should be charged. Better? Charged with what? You do your own research you say, so...Research.

But if you continue with this, well we didn't do it to so and so, anyway they get such and such privilege.

Again, this just proves the point. and shows why nothing really changes.

What society do you want? What country do you want? You want to always be the country sending arms to corrupt governments? The country that expands it's empire with military bases?

Go look at what Obama is doing in Africa, then ask yourself 'why'.

mrussel1

Idris said:

mrussel1 said:

Idris said:

mrussel1 said:

Idris said:

mrussel1 said:

Idris said:

mrussel1 said:

Real revolutions are rarely the solution. How many true revolutions have been bloodless? Maybe the Glorious Revolution (appropriately misnamed)? Revolution for the sake of what? Is that going to eliminate the Israeli settlements? What are you fighting for precisely?

a voting non violent revolution to change the Path of destruction and hegemony we have been on for years. (again, it's done by voting and holding our leaders accountable)

Yes it will end the Israeli settlements, because for one. If we do not elect pro israeli folks, who continue to fund the Israeli army etc. Obvi, they will not be able to continue to build.

When we elect people who refuse to be critical of Israel, and then send them billions of dollars and weapons. Of course, what is gonna change?

When we stand at the UN and back Israel till the end? Course, what will change.

Everyone is a friggin special interest today.

We need to hold our leaders accountable. Start with that. It's really not that difficult.

Again, nothing changes because of us. The voters. We demand nothing, and give them everything.

People worried about how the media will show them, destroyed by the right/left wing media.

Listen to that..

The news should just be news. Not slanted view points. CNN, Fox its all bullshit. But we take it as pure news. It is NOT.

Then you have these media outlets hosting presidential debates...Who gave them the power? Who allows it to continue? We do.

What do you mean "hold them accountable"? That's very ambiguous. We have elections, impeachment articles, etc.

When they break international law, I dunno, when they drop bombs on innocent people...Hold them accountable. Courts, punish, get it? We have elections, yes and we (again) vote for people who do not truly represent us, but their own(?) interests and/or the interests of corporations.

Obama refused to go after W Bush on war crimes, and we supported that. So sure we have outlets to use. But we don't use them (I'm just repeating myself at this point)

If you were to make the argument that there were specific US laws that the administration broke, I could support that but it's still useless. The chance of conviction would be low due to executive privilege and other bedrock constitutional privileges afforded the office. And we're sure as hell not sending an ex-president to the Hague for trial. Additionally, remember that the Union didn't even prosecute Davis or Stephens for treason.

Start Fresh. Current President should be charged. Better? Charged with what? You do your own research you say, so...Research.

But if you continue with this, well we didn't do it to so and so, anyway they get such and such privilege.

Again, this just proves the point. and shows why nothing really changes.

What society do you want? What country do you want? You want to always be the country sending arms to corrupt governments? The country that expands it's empire with military bases?

Go look at what Obama is doing in Africa, then ask yourself 'why'.

Why the hell would I research? I'm not the one advocating charges against W.

I'm pointing out to you the very practical reasons why Obama wouldn't and should not have tried to prosecute the Bush administration. And that's bullshit that nothing changes. This country has changed dramatically over the past 200 years. It's evolving, some for the worse, but mostly for the better. You don't need revolution to continue the change.

The Fixer

mrussel1 said:

The Fixer said:

mrussel1 said:

The Fixer said:

mrussel1 said:

The Fixer said:

Who has Hillary had to debate against? No one. The Democratic debates were pillow fights...a complete joke. Hillary puts her foot in her mouth every time she speaks (or barks like a dog). She is a disgrace and her track record proves that. She couldn't even manage her marriage, how is she going to run a country?? The email server, Benghazi, her track record as secretary of state, etc. So many angles from which she can be exposed.

Trump has plenty of ammo to use in the upcoming debates. It's going to be hilarious

What a dumb argument.. she couldn't manage her marriage. Did Trump manage his marriage(s)? Is your double standard that obvious? And Hillary debated Obama. You know.. the guy that smoked the Republican field twice.... I thought you were going to come up with something a bit more analytical than right wing talking points. There's not one thing Trump can hit her with that hasn't been lobbed at her a 100x before.

But trump didn't get walked all over in his failed marriages the way Hillary did and still does.

So Hillary was favored to beat obama and lost badly, but she did a good job debating? Ummm, OK right. That makes sense.

I don't know what 'favored' means. I didn't check the oddsmakers in 2008 when they both announced. But if you recall, Obama picked up Edwards voters while HRC stayed steady in 2007.

And the marriage argument is a stupid one. Do you really think that blaming HRC for Bill's infidelities is going to help close the enormous gap Trump has with women? Do you think that's the solution for Trump? Yeah, women, who make up 55% of the electorate, will surely gravitate to that argument.

favored means predicted to win. when you don't win as a favorite it means you choked. In terms of politics it does not reflect well on a candidates' ability to debate (among other things). Hillary was favored to win the nomination the first time she ran. She failed miserably.

The marriage thing is a reflection of her character. Not sure why she would stay with a guy who walked all over her for years. To me it shows weakness, which is one of many reasons why I think she is a horrible candidate.

At the end of the day, the marriage thing ranks low on the reasons why I would never support her. But I think it's relevant...and fair game if trump decides to play that card in the upcoming debates.

Bringing up Bills infidelities would be the height of stupidity for Trump.. so it's guaranteed to happen I guess.

And she didn't fail miserably. That's a ridiculous statement. It went into June and then the super delegates committed to Obama, who is no political slouch. She didn't fail like say... Trump University, or Tour de Trump (ha!), Trump Airlines, Trump Casinos, Trump: the Game, and more..

my point is that trump has more ammo than hillary will have. her track record speaks for itself

mrussel1

You really think Trump isn't a treasure trove of OPPO research? The GOP candidates have committed political malpractice over the last six months. Team Clinton can be vicious. I mean they had Vince Foster and JFL Jr killed for chrissakes.

The Fixer

mrussel1 said:

You really think Trump isn't a treasure trove of OPPO research? The GOP candidates have committed political malpractice over the last six months. Team Clinton can be vicious. I mean they had Vince Foster and JFL Jr killed for chrissakes.

trump is far from a stellar candidate. no doubt.

clinton will be heavily favored in the presidential election. That means she will be expected to win (again). I think trump will fare well in the debates and make things interesting, but he's still a long shot to win.

the entire state of candidates from both parties is incredibly sad. I believe in small government and keeping my income to support my family, so I vote Republican.

mrussel1

I believe capitalism creates winners and losers by its very nature. It's impossible not to have a lower class in our economic system. The question is how great the disparity should be between middle and lower class. This is why I believe in the social safety net and progressive causes. But I don't go as far as sanders.

Idris

mrussel1 said:

Idris said:

mrussel1 said:

Idris said:

mrussel1 said:

Idris said:

mrussel1 said:

Idris said:

mrussel1 said:

Real revolutions are rarely the solution. How many true revolutions have been bloodless? Maybe the Glorious Revolution (appropriately misnamed)? Revolution for the sake of what? Is that going to eliminate the Israeli settlements? What are you fighting for precisely?

a voting non violent revolution to change the Path of destruction and hegemony we have been on for years. (again, it's done by voting and holding our leaders accountable)

Yes it will end the Israeli settlements, because for one. If we do not elect pro israeli folks, who continue to fund the Israeli army etc. Obvi, they will not be able to continue to build.

When we elect people who refuse to be critical of Israel, and then send them billions of dollars and weapons. Of course, what is gonna change?

When we stand at the UN and back Israel till the end? Course, what will change.

Everyone is a friggin special interest today.

We need to hold our leaders accountable. Start with that. It's really not that difficult.

Again, nothing changes because of us. The voters. We demand nothing, and give them everything.

People worried about how the media will show them, destroyed by the right/left wing media.

Listen to that..

The news should just be news. Not slanted view points. CNN, Fox its all bullshit. But we take it as pure news. It is NOT.

Then you have these media outlets hosting presidential debates...Who gave them the power? Who allows it to continue? We do.

What do you mean "hold them accountable"? That's very ambiguous. We have elections, impeachment articles, etc.

When they break international law, I dunno, when they drop bombs on innocent people...Hold them accountable. Courts, punish, get it? We have elections, yes and we (again) vote for people who do not truly represent us, but their own(?) interests and/or the interests of corporations.

Obama refused to go after W Bush on war crimes, and we supported that. So sure we have outlets to use. But we don't use them (I'm just repeating myself at this point)

If you were to make the argument that there were specific US laws that the administration broke, I could support that but it's still useless. The chance of conviction would be low due to executive privilege and other bedrock constitutional privileges afforded the office. And we're sure as hell not sending an ex-president to the Hague for trial. Additionally, remember that the Union didn't even prosecute Davis or Stephens for treason.

Start Fresh. Current President should be charged. Better? Charged with what? You do your own research you say, so...Research.

But if you continue with this, well we didn't do it to so and so, anyway they get such and such privilege.

Again, this just proves the point. and shows why nothing really changes.

What society do you want? What country do you want? You want to always be the country sending arms to corrupt governments? The country that expands it's empire with military bases?

Go look at what Obama is doing in Africa, then ask yourself 'why'.

Why the hell would I research? I'm not the one advocating charges against W.

I'm pointing out to you the very practical reasons why Obama wouldn't and should not have tried to prosecute the Bush administration. And that's bullshit that nothing changes. This country has changed dramatically over the past 200 years. It's evolving, some for the worse, but mostly for the better. You don't need revolution to continue the change.

You said you do your own research, so research the crimes.

Practical reasons? Who cares what is practical in this case. Do what is 'right' (sorry, too relative?..what is 'right'?)

AND again, do you remember why Obama refused to go after Bush and co? and again, I say, obama should be prosecuted. Set an example for the next leader.

Yes, things have changed. Some for the better, sure. But I am speaking about our two party system and leaders who we elect and continue our path of destruction and corruption by supporting corrupt governments around the world (one example)

Yes, this country is evolving. But what are we evolving into?

We export more death than any other nation, we drop a 5 ton bombs on villages knowing full well it'll kill innocent people then run around saying how we don't target civilians.

So what exactly are we? What are we evolving into? A more efficient killing machine perhaps...

rgambs

The Fixer said:

mrussel1 said:

The Fixer said:

mrussel1 said:

The Fixer said:

Who has Hillary had to debate against? No one. The Democratic debates were pillow fights...a complete joke. Hillary puts her foot in her mouth every time she speaks (or barks like a dog). She is a disgrace and her track record proves that. She couldn't even manage her marriage, how is she going to run a country?? The email server, Benghazi, her track record as secretary of state, etc. So many angles from which she can be exposed.

Trump has plenty of ammo to use in the upcoming debates. It's going to be hilarious

What a dumb argument.. she couldn't manage her marriage. Did Trump manage his marriage(s)? Is your double standard that obvious? And Hillary debated Obama. You know.. the guy that smoked the Republican field twice.... I thought you were going to come up with something a bit more analytical than right wing talking points. There's not one thing Trump can hit her with that hasn't been lobbed at her a 100x before.

But trump didn't get walked all over in his failed marriages the way Hillary did and still does.

So Hillary was favored to beat obama and lost badly, but she did a good job debating? Ummm, OK right. That makes sense.

I don't know what 'favored' means. I didn't check the oddsmakers in 2008 when they both announced. But if you recall, Obama picked up Edwards voters while HRC stayed steady in 2007.

And the marriage argument is a stupid one. Do you really think that blaming HRC for Bill's infidelities is going to help close the enormous gap Trump has with women? Do you think that's the solution for Trump? Yeah, women, who make up 55% of the electorate, will surely gravitate to that argument.

favored means predicted to win. when you don't win as a favorite it means you choked. In terms of politics it does not reflect well on a candidates' ability to debate (among other things). Hillary was favored to win the nomination the first time she ran. She failed miserably.

The marriage thing is a reflection of her character. Not sure why she would stay with a guy who walked all over her for years. To me it shows weakness, which is one of many reasons why I think she is a horrible candidate.

At the end of the day, the marriage thing ranks low on the reasons why I would never support her. But I think it's relevant...and fair game if trump decides to play that card in the upcoming debates.

So Trump's failed marriages are fair game as well. Not good for him.
His current marriage to a foreign prostitute? Is also fair game, not good for him.

Cliffy6745

The Fixer said:

mrussel1 said:

You really think Trump isn't a treasure trove of OPPO research? The GOP candidates have committed political malpractice over the last six months. Team Clinton can be vicious. I mean they had Vince Foster and JFL Jr killed for chrissakes.

trump is far from a stellar candidate. no doubt.

clinton will be heavily favored in the presidential election. That means she will be expected to win (again). I think trump will fare well in the debates and make things interesting, but he's still a long shot to win.

the entire state of candidates from both parties is incredibly sad. I believe in small government and keeping my income to support my family, so I vote Republican.

You do realize that the government has expanded significantly more under recent republican Presidents than Democrat, right?

mrussel1

Cliffy6745 said:

The Fixer said:

mrussel1 said:

You really think Trump isn't a treasure trove of OPPO research? The GOP candidates have committed political malpractice over the last six months. Team Clinton can be vicious. I mean they had Vince Foster and JFL Jr killed for chrissakes.

trump is far from a stellar candidate. no doubt.

clinton will be heavily favored in the presidential election. That means she will be expected to win (again). I think trump will fare well in the debates and make things interesting, but he's still a long shot to win.

the entire state of candidates from both parties is incredibly sad. I believe in small government and keeping my income to support my family, so I vote Republican.

You do realize that the government has expanded significantly more under recent republican Presidents than Democrat, right?

Even the Koch brothers know that!

Cliffy6745

Also, yelling nonsense over someone is not debating. That is not practice. It will not be difficult for Hillary to get under his skin and have him look like a child.

callen

Idris said:

callen said:

Idris said:

The More I think about it. The more I 'like' the idea of Trump As President.

Interesting. Please elaborate.

Sure,

Was Bush jr -good- for the USA? What is 'good' anyway? W Bush came across as a very real/sincere guy. He believed that going into Iraq and slaughtering people was a 'Good' idea.

Much of the Country (and world) didn't agree with it. So what did we do? We protested. Thousands of us. On the Streets, showing our anger. 'How dare we bomb another country, not in our name!'

Then when night comes. We go home and feel 'good' (again this word Good) about ourselves and then go on 'support the troops'...They are just -following orders- (again, very dangerous)

We play very dangerous games(?) in this country. We play the 'ANYBODY BUT...(FILL IN the candidate we fear the most)

Anybody but Bush!, Anybody but mccain anybody but palin, anybody but Trump, Cruz...

Nader? Fuck Nader, he stole votes from Gore...Nader went into the pockets of Gore and took votes from him. Of course, that's bullshit. If Gore wanted Nader's votes, then the democrats should've taken on the issues, Causes that got Nader the support he had. And of course in 2004 Kerry getting his ass kicked by Bush, Nader was not close 2 being a factor, so what was the excuse then?

I think we need to take a few steps back, before moving forward and ask ourselves, what kinda of a country, world, society we want to live in.

You know, when Israel was killing Palestinians right before Obama took office that first term..Many of his supporters said just wait until he's in Office, things will change, then a year goes by, 2 3, then it became...NO No NO Idris, wait until his (Obama)second term, then he'll let loose, anyway we cant have Mccain and palin in office.

So second term is here, 1 year goes by, 2 years, 3, now his final year...and what do we hear? It's the republicans fault. They Blocked him, blame them.

No. Sorry, I blame Obama and many of his supporters.

When Obama took office and refused to go after Bush and Co. for war crimes because it would be too...What word did he use?? Ah yes, it would be "too Divisive".

Look, We need to hold our leaders accountable. Let's start with Obama. hold his feet to the fire. set the stage for whomever is elected (next).

You know, maybe we will (as a collective) 'wake up' when things gets really, really, really. Bad. MAYBE WE NEED TRUMP to go about getting rid of the Muslims, and build a wall. Maybe we need Cruz to go war crazy and level countries. Maybe then, maybe, just maybe then.We'll 'Wake up' and stop our bullshit self-propaganda.

We have the ability in the USA to have non violent revolutions, it starts with us. But these non violent revolutions will not happen until we demand more from the ones we elect and/or hold them accountable. Even bernie sanders, he's talking revolution, but then says he'll support Clinton because...He's a democrat. Well aint that nice.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Very much get and agree with what your saying.

From my perspective Obama's done more for my causes than I could of imagined. The current backlash in gay rights is example of this ship taking a while to turn left. But it's turning.

callen

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

Real revolutions are rarely the solution. How many true revolutions have been bloodless? Maybe the Glorious Revolution (appropriately misnamed)? Revolution for the sake of what? Is that going to eliminate the Israeli settlements? What are you fighting for precisely?

Sounds like we're way overdue for a bloodless revolution!

Some movements and organizations that have created much change have been bloodless. (The original) Earth First! and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society come to mind. And Prince, of course!

Of course Prince. I grant you that. But revolution implies an overthrow of the gov't and typically the Constitution. I don't think there's much of an appetite for that in this country. Just ask those Bundy douches. They thought they were starting a movement and it just landed them all as future felons that can't own guns (irony!).

We have movements in this country which is quite different than revolution. The temperance movement, civil rights movement, abolitionist (which led to an unsuccessful revolution). I would gravely disagree that we are due for one.

Was thinking of Pinchot dude and how he sacrificed himself thinking there would be strong reaction and it didn't happen.

Americans are fat and mostly happy.

callen

The Fixer said:

mrussel1 said:

The Fixer said:

mrussel1 said:

The Fixer said:

Who has Hillary had to debate against? No one. The Democratic debates were pillow fights...a complete joke. Hillary puts her foot in her mouth every time she speaks (or barks like a dog). She is a disgrace and her track record proves that. She couldn't even manage her marriage, how is she going to run a country?? The email server, Benghazi, her track record as secretary of state, etc. So many angles from which she can be exposed.

Trump has plenty of ammo to use in the upcoming debates. It's going to be hilarious

What a dumb argument.. she couldn't manage her marriage. Did Trump manage his marriage(s)? Is your double standard that obvious? And Hillary debated Obama. You know.. the guy that smoked the Republican field twice.... I thought you were going to come up with something a bit more analytical than right wing talking points. There's not one thing Trump can hit her with that hasn't been lobbed at her a 100x before.

But trump didn't get walked all over in his failed marriages the way Hillary did and still does.

So Hillary was favored to beat obama and lost badly, but she did a good job debating? Ummm, OK right. That makes sense.

I don't know what 'favored' means. I didn't check the oddsmakers in 2008 when they both announced. But if you recall, Obama picked up Edwards voters while HRC stayed steady in 2007.

And the marriage argument is a stupid one. Do you really think that blaming HRC for Bill's infidelities is going to help close the enormous gap Trump has with women? Do you think that's the solution for Trump? Yeah, women, who make up 55% of the electorate, will surely gravitate to that argument.

favored means predicted to win. when you don't win as a favorite it means you choked. In terms of politics it does not reflect well on a candidates' ability to debate (among other things). Hillary was favored to win the nomination the first time she ran. She failed miserably.

The marriage thing is a reflection of her character. Not sure why she would stay with a guy who walked all over her for years. To me it shows weakness, which is one of many reasons why I think she is a horrible candidate.

At the end of the day, the marriage thing ranks low on the reasons why I would never support her. But I think it's relevant...and fair game if trump decides to play that card in the upcoming debates.

You won't support Hillary because that's the Fox News battle cry. As to her debating skills, she took on many republicans repeatedly and crushed them on Bengazi road show.

mrussel1

^^

Great point on Benghazi. I had forgot about that one. She was supremely prepared and the GOP got zero out of it.

rgambs

mrussel1 said:

^^

Great point on Benghazi. I had forgot about that one. She was supremely prepared and the GOP got zero out of it.

Yeah, it was supposed to be this big takedown, it ended up being the best moment of her campaign so far.

PJ_Soul

rgambs said:

mrussel1 said:

^^

Great point on Benghazi. I had forgot about that one. She was supremely prepared and the GOP got zero out of it.

Yeah, it was supposed to be this big takedown, it ended up being the best moment of her campaign so far.

That's true. She kind of made them look like idiots actually.

Free

Cartoon Trump Admits It's All An Act to Stephen Colbert

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4h6BXGkgkgE

The Fixer

Cliffy6745 said:

The Fixer said:

mrussel1 said:

You really think Trump isn't a treasure trove of OPPO research? The GOP candidates have committed political malpractice over the last six months. Team Clinton can be vicious. I mean they had Vince Foster and JFL Jr killed for chrissakes.

trump is far from a stellar candidate. no doubt.

clinton will be heavily favored in the presidential election. That means she will be expected to win (again). I think trump will fare well in the debates and make things interesting, but he's still a long shot to win.

the entire state of candidates from both parties is incredibly sad. I believe in small government and keeping my income to support my family, so I vote Republican.

You do realize that the government has expanded significantly more under recent republican Presidents than Democrat, right?

sure but I think pointing a lot of political historical things is irrelevant these days. democrats were pro-slavery for example.

today the gop is for smaller government and lower taxes. liberals are for handout programs like welfare, obamacare, etc.

I will never understand why middle class america votes for higher taxes. guess people don't like money

The Fixer

callen said:

The Fixer said:

mrussel1 said:

The Fixer said:

mrussel1 said:

The Fixer said:

Who has Hillary had to debate against? No one. The Democratic debates were pillow fights...a complete joke. Hillary puts her foot in her mouth every time she speaks (or barks like a dog). She is a disgrace and her track record proves that. She couldn't even manage her marriage, how is she going to run a country?? The email server, Benghazi, her track record as secretary of state, etc. So many angles from which she can be exposed.

Trump has plenty of ammo to use in the upcoming debates. It's going to be hilarious

What a dumb argument.. she couldn't manage her marriage. Did Trump manage his marriage(s)? Is your double standard that obvious? And Hillary debated Obama. You know.. the guy that smoked the Republican field twice.... I thought you were going to come up with something a bit more analytical than right wing talking points. There's not one thing Trump can hit her with that hasn't been lobbed at her a 100x before.

But trump didn't get walked all over in his failed marriages the way Hillary did and still does.

So Hillary was favored to beat obama and lost badly, but she did a good job debating? Ummm, OK right. That makes sense.

I don't know what 'favored' means. I didn't check the oddsmakers in 2008 when they both announced. But if you recall, Obama picked up Edwards voters while HRC stayed steady in 2007.

And the marriage argument is a stupid one. Do you really think that blaming HRC for Bill's infidelities is going to help close the enormous gap Trump has with women? Do you think that's the solution for Trump? Yeah, women, who make up 55% of the electorate, will surely gravitate to that argument.

favored means predicted to win. when you don't win as a favorite it means you choked. In terms of politics it does not reflect well on a candidates' ability to debate (among other things). Hillary was favored to win the nomination the first time she ran. She failed miserably.

The marriage thing is a reflection of her character. Not sure why she would stay with a guy who walked all over her for years. To me it shows weakness, which is one of many reasons why I think she is a horrible candidate.

At the end of the day, the marriage thing ranks low on the reasons why I would never support her. But I think it's relevant...and fair game if trump decides to play that card in the upcoming debates.

You won't support Hillary because that's the Fox News battle cry. As to her debating skills, she took on many republicans repeatedly and crushed them on Bengazi road show.

libtards love referring to fox news. MSNBC is just as bad if not worse. Rachel Maddow is a disgrace