Hillary won more votes for President

Free said:

The Politico had these among a couple others:

1. Her China speech on women.
2. Her role in killing Osama bin Laden.
3. Management of the State Department during which time we saw a 50 percent increase in exports to China, aggressive work on climate (particularly at Copenhagen), and the effort to create and implement the toughest sanctions ever on Iran—helping to lead us to the agreement currently on the table.

1.? An accomplishment for the people? And if she is attributed with backing women in general, she is equally attributed for trashing women for supporting a candidate that is not her. Should we bring up her role in Bill's extramarital affairs and how she quietly dismissed but first chided them down to nothing? Look it up.

2. Bin Laden. And what role is that? No one Ever even showed proof that he was even killed, there was no body the US provided in photograph, let alone a body.

3. Exports to China led to tax breaks for companies to export jobs and companies overseas. Climate work? Ha, if accepting $$$ from fossil fuel industry is climate work, yeah, taken care of. I don't see anything about Panama Papers in there, and her involvement...and she and Bill certainly were.

so if bin laden wasnt killed, why his silence since it was reported he was killed?

BS44325 said:

Degeneratefk said:

Free said:

Degeneratefk said:

Free said:

Degeneratefk said:

What's the conspiracy that forced Schultz to resign? That she was a Clinton supporter? Seems silly.

Silly indeed. She only worked for Clinton as her campaign manager in '08.

And since you asked...

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

http://heavy.com/news/2015/12/debbie-wasserman-schultz-bernie-sanders-sues-dnc-age-bio-husband/

Why do we need to know who she's married to or what her net worth is?

Can't read around the personal stuff, eh?

I did. They couldn't find 5 things they didn't like about her? Why not just say here's 3 things you should know about her? Makes it just that much less credible.

It's like 7 minute abs. It's not 6 but 7.

Not a very good comparison

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Why has this thread become soft closed?

What is soft closed?

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

BS44325 said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Why has this thread become soft closed?

What is soft closed?

You are about to discover the power you don't have.
Let this thread fall like a leaf.
And let this be a lesson.

Dude asked a simple question and that's how you,answer? Either you know what that means or you're just posting to see your avatar again

WTF happened in this conversation? I take my boy to the movies and it goes straight to hell.

brianlux said:

EdsonNascimento said:

brianlux said:

My guess is Bernie is playing it a bit safe because like most of the rest of us, he recognizes that a Trump presidency would be an utter debacle. But besides that, at the same time I'm disappointed that Bernie didn't stand firm on his objectives. Or maybe he still hopes to obtain those objectives through the Senate.

I for one am conflicted about this coming election. Stein is the candidate with whom I feel most aligned. If we get close to election time and it looks like Hillary is going to win by record numbers- something she does not deserve- I will definitely vote for Stein. If it looks like Hillary is likely to win but not hugely, ditto. But if it looks like Trump has a decent (I mean indecent) chance, then I might have to consider doing what basically amounts to heresy toward my beliefs- voting for She Who Shall Not Be Named here. I really really really hope it doesn't come down to that.

I think it's funny that anti establishment voters are so willing to vote the same old same old instead of something different. Shaking up Washington should be what one would want under those circumstances. But get lulled into political as usual bc of....wait for it....Drilling for fear.

The irony in this election is intriguing.

I agree, Edson, and if your basic run of the mill establishment type had won the Republican ticket, I would vote for what you term an "anti-establishment" candidate (I would call people like Stein and Sanders "Reestablishing" candidates) but this is Trump where talking about. No fear here, just frustration.

But isn't he the ultimate anti-establishment? Bernie really isn't. He's just an ultra liberal that already works in Washington who is trying to guide his party to the more extreme side of their policy spectrum. That would certainly be something different. And, he's certainly less establishment than Queen Hillary, but he is ensconced in DC no different than any other Senator.

On the other hand, Trump is (clearly) no politician, he (clearly) upsets pretty much everyone in the (both?) party(ies). Quite honestly, I'm not even sure he's a Republican.

What he is, is a businessman who has used every process to his advantage to gain the ultimate American dream. Again, setting aside whether you agree with what and how he's done it, he's never gone to jail (hopefully you get what I mean and don't define this so narrowly). The most that's been raised on him is numerous lawsuits. Which, even Mark Cuban can attest - when you get to that level - everyone's looking to sue you.

If you are looking for someone to potentially destabilize Washington - Trump is actually your candidate.

Now, truth be told, he would end up no different than Obama or any other elected official that goes to Washington. Obama had zero, count that - zero - international experience when he ran for office. At least Trump has had international business experience. He does business all over the world.

Not platforming for Trump, but the more I see people afraid of what will happen when the boogyman gets elected, the more I think he may be just what we need. A person who doesn't really want it, doesn't really need it, and ultimately will be better off if he's not elected. I'm not sure you can say that about anybody else (including Bernie Sanders) in this cycle.

And as we get closer to the election, and people think about Trump winning, we get more minimizations and rationalizations. All of a sudden, it doesn't matter who the president is, because they're all the same. I don't think that's how it works. Trump would end up no different than Obama? There's nothing that supports this statement. Obama didn't have experience dealing in the international arena, but he obviously has a personality and skill set that worked. You think Trump has the same?