US Politics/2016 Election Pick Your Poison Master Thread

[JTZ]

The difference is she isn't helping a national political campaign. So the fact that she may be abusive is irrelevant.

...and HRC having a workplace sexual predator as her main campaign person is better?

[Yehuda57]

Then don't piss him off and you will be a friend forever. If one thing Trump understands better than HRC it is loyalty.

Source? He is on his third campaign manager, for one

[EJB]

Source? He is on his third campaign manager, for one

Sinking poll numbers pisses him off.

[george]

Source? He is on his third campaign manager, for one

His top Trump Organization executives are all long time employees. Besides his children.

[JTZ]

Source? He is on his third campaign manager, for one

Look at when his campaign manager grab the lady reporter. He stood by him. Contrast that with HRC when the emails came out about DNC. She cut her long time top supporter off at the knees before the ink was dry.

[Yehuda57]

Look at when his campaign manager grab the lady reporter. He stood by him. Contrast that with HRC when the emails came out about DNC. She cut her long time top supporter off at the knees before the ink was dry.

I'm not claiming hrc to be loyal. I'm just saying I don't know that Trump is as loyal as is being made out.

[JTZ]

I'm just saying I don't know that Trump is as loyal as is being made out.

He seems to be. That might be the first time I found a positive for him. 

[Yehuda57]

He seems to be. That might be the first time I found a positive for him. 

Loyalty to the wrong people is a negative.

[good sam]

Loyalty to the wrong people is a negative.

To whom has he not been loyal?

Don't tell me campaign manager. Official position is that it was mutual so any other theory is speculation.

[aygart]

And the trump supporters think I'm more qualified to be president than Hillary, bc after all, Hillary used a private email server.

There have been numerous reasons some on this forum have stated for their support for Trump. I don't think even one said it has to do with the email server. This post is a classic case of cognitive dissonance. Even those bringing up the server are only doing so because it is indicative of a much bigger issue.

[JTZ]

There have been numerous reasons some on this forum have stated for their support for Trump. I don't think even one said it has to do with the email server. This post is a classic case of cognitive dissonance. Even those bringing up the server are only doing so because it is indicative of a much bigger issue.

You mean like sending and receiving classified information on an unsecure server?

[EJB]

There have been numerous reasons some on this forum have stated for their support for Trump. I don't think even one said it has to do with the email server. This post is a classic case of cognitive dissonance. Even those bringing up the server are only doing so because it is indicative of a much bigger issue.

Not all all. All I'm saying is just because one candidate has weaknesses doesn't mean another is qualified for office. That also doesn't mean the other is not qualified. Some have brought reasons, but many have not, and it's challenging to make case that he's qualified to be president based on his merits. Does anyone here really think of trump as their ideal president? If you could choose anyone alive, would he be near the top of that list?

That being said, if I vote, it very well may be for him.

[aygart]

You mean like sending and receiving classified information on an unsecure server?

Yes, although i could have written it better. The issue is not just that she used a personal server but that there was classified information sent that way and that her purpose seems to have been to hide some of her shady dealings.

[JTZ]

Yes, although i could have written it better. The issue is not just that she used a personal server but that there was classified information sent that way and that her purpose seems to have been to hide some of her shady dealings.

The shady dealing I don't care about. The way Comey put it as being "extremely careless" with the information is what I have a problem with.

[aygart]

Not all all. All I'm saying is just because one candidate has weaknesses doesn't mean another is qualified for office. That also doesn't mean the other is not qualified. Some have brought reasons, but many have not, and it's challenging to make case that he's qualified to be president based on his merits. Does anyone here really think of trump as their ideal president? If you could choose anyone alive, would he be near the top of that list?

That being said, if I vote, it very well may be for him.

As I wrote earlier,

One is not qualified the other is disqualified.

The shady dealing I don't care about. The way Comey put it as being "extremely careless" with the information is what I have a problem with.

That is your choice. I care when the foreign policy is for sale to the highest bidder.

[Yehuda57]

To whom has he not been loyal?

Don't tell me campaign manager. Official position is that it was mutual so any other theory is speculation.

Firstly, he's on his third campaign manager.
Secondly, loyalty is a wonderful trait. But ability to admit mistakes - yours, and those of your associates - and cut your losses and/or make a stand for what's right, is arguably more important.

Lastly, when loyalty is all you got...

[JTZ]

I care when the foreign policy is for sale to the highest bidder.

I am no HRC fan but lets keep this real.

[EJB]

The shady dealing I don't care about. The way Comey put it as being "extremely careless" with the information is what I have a problem with.

I see the second as more significant. I don't think she intended to send classified information over the server, though it's clear she did and that was wrong. I think she wanted to hide her conversations from the world. And that frightens me.

[JTZ]

I see the second as more significant. I don't think she intended to send classified information over the server, though it's clear she did and that was wrong. I think she wanted to hide her conversations from the world. And that frightens me.

She has a right to her personal conversations. They are none of anybody's business.

[aygart]

I am no HRC fan but lets keep this real.

When half of her meetings were with donors and there was definitely collusion between CF and DoS that becomes a concern. Do you really think that all those Muslim sheiks are so interested in fighting AIDS? Why do you think they gave millions to  a "charity" where only less than 10% geos to anything chritable?