jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (91 posts)

Is Donald Trump a threat to Hillary Clinton and women for President ?

  1. Misfit Chick profile image93
    Misfit Chickposted 9 months ago

    http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12908846_f520.jpg
    I am really curious about what other women think; because I've only recently started paying attention to politics since the media is ramping up Trump so much, lately. Before that, I'm sorry... I was not even SORT of paying attention to any other candidate from any party. Hillary is my girl, and she is going in that office as far as I am concerned. smile

    And yet, I find myself having to deal with a bout of the giggles whenever I watch Donald Trump - because he's serious. His rhetoric contains lots of animated expressions with comedic words and emphatic gestures that seem literaly hysterical to me - as if he is putting on an SNL sketch. Of course, he is kind of a funny-looking guy anyway - so maybe that just can't be helped. (What is it with rich guys being ugly? Remember when Ross Perot tried to become President? My ex voted for him, LoL!)

    Trump has a hyped-up campaign that looks like he is putting on a really good show - and it just makes me giggle, because that's what it feels like to me. It's a circus and he is the 'Star' dancing bear. Really, he said this a couple days ago during one of his victory speeches: "I will be great for women" or something like that...

    As a woman, when I think about who would be the best candidate for me - Trump is at the bottom of that list, right along with Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh. While I can certainly see what people find so entertaining about him (I think) - does he really think that he has a shot at knocking Hillary off of the hill for us women?

    I know that there are a lot of conservative women out there who like what he is saying - because like every politician, he is doing his best to ramp up a fanbase. But, come on! Even *I* voted for Reagan TWICE!! wink

    While I don't expect conservative GOP women to necessarily vote for Hillary - The Donald just can't be your first choice, can it? Can it?!! I mean, there is only ONE reason why the man has any respect at all - if you can call it that - money. I make SO MUCH MONEY so I can buy myself this platform; and YOU poor folks HAVE to listen to me - because *I* represent the 1% of the people who really matter in this country.

    Think about it... ANYONE who has enough money can buy themselves a soapbox and say all the right things. You probably know someone who SHOULD be on that soapbox or maybe even YOU should be on it. But, we have Trump because he has the money to be spouting off like this - Not only in the form of currency to continue spewing his divisive hate messages; but that is why/how we know him - because he is famous for his money and selfish-involved extravagance. I mean, he has got to be one of the most vain people on the planet.

    He does not represent the majority of 'we the people'. How can he? What do you think? Is my perspective ridiculous?

    1. Live to Learn profile image81
      Live to Learnposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      Donald Trump is far from my first choice. But, 'us women' as you put it doesn't exist in my mind. I would hate to vote by sex, race, religion, or anything else. Unfortunately, without pushing for me to vote for her just because she is a woman Hilary has little to offer and a lot of baggage dragging her down.

      If I had to vote tomorrow and it was down to the two of them I'd have to vote for Trump because I cannot imagine a country with Hillary at the helm. I shudder to imagine a country with Trump at the helm but given a choice I see him as the lesser of the two evils but, unfortunately, the goofier of the two buffoons.

      1. Misfit Chick profile image93
        Misfit Chickposted 9 months ago in reply to this

        Wow. Now I'm scared - I was deceiving myself to think that the garganuan amount of brainwashing that has gone on in this country where we are concerned - yes, WE women - was somehow a fading, distant memory. It's scary, because your ilk is also very shrill, devious and resentful. I really would not put it past people like you to still vote for this guy.

        FYI - 'We the People' are on the same side. It is people like him who INTENTIONALLY creates the unusually DEEP divisions that exist between people's extreme ideals - whatever the topic is.

        And that's okay with you? You WANT things to get worse between people who think like you and people who don't?

        Amazing. Absolutely amazing.

        1. Live to Learn profile image81
          Live to Learnposted 9 months ago in reply to this

          Didn't mean to scare you. I'll be honest. I get scared by minorities who are somehow single issue voters.  I don't see it so much as having been brain washed but being selfish.

          As far as my 'ilk' being shrill, devious and resentful. lol  You shouldn't worry too much. There aren't many of us ilks out here. Most women I know are kind of like you are coming off. I'll spare you my assessment of that.

          1. Misfit Chick profile image93
            Misfit Chickposted 9 months ago in reply to this

            Thank you. Touche. smile

        2. PrettyPanther profile image86
          PrettyPantherposted 9 months ago in reply to this

          I really don't understand where the "shrill, devious and resentful" assessment of Live to Learn's reply comes from.  I didn't see that in there at all.

          1. Misfit Chick profile image93
            Misfit Chickposted 9 months ago in reply to this

            I didn't say she was being those things - I said people of her 'ilk' - or think like her - have a reputation for those things. In my opinion, that is the only reason why you would vote for someone like Trump - to 'stick it to' liberals. When in the end, he wouldn't win; and would only accomplish to create more and deeper divisions. I actually thought her reply was pretty lowkey. smile

            1. Live to Learn profile image81
              Live to Learnposted 9 months ago in reply to this

              Now, you sound like a politician.

              1. Misfit Chick profile image93
                Misfit Chickposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                Yes, keep picking my words apart and don't listen to the message I am trying to get across. That is what I meant by 'shrill, devious and resentful' - very typical. What other reason would you vote for him? Because you don't like people you have labeled as 'liberals'. I don't consider myself to be a liberal - I'm an Independent. And, I would really appreciate it if you would not vote for crazy people just because they have the ability to scream the loudest and will give you the most wicked satisfaction.

                1. Live to Learn profile image81
                  Live to Learnposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                  I don't know that I have ever said I have anything against liberals. I actually like Bernie. I don't like Hillary, but I am not ignorant enough to believe she is 'all liberals'.  But, since we are making requests, I'd like to see women spend more time actually understanding the issues as opposed to simply backing a candidate because she happens to be of the same sex.

                  1. Misfit Chick profile image93
                    Misfit Chickposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                    That isn't the reason why I am voting for her - nor is that the reason of any other woman. We KNOW what Hillary's policies are, what her experience is - and we know that she isn't perfect. She is getting my vote for a long list of reasons, I assure you. That is the reason why I haven't been watching anyone else. I know who I want this time. I have yet to hear something come out of her mouth that I did not understand where it came from - to name one thing.

        3. Jean Bakula profile image96
          Jean Bakulaposted 9 months ago in reply to this

          I have deep concerns about what Trump would do about women's issues, or any issues at all. I respect the fact he isn't taking money from SuperPaks, but his personality is so volatile, I don't think he would make a good leader. He was once a respected businessman, but went insane when Obama was elected twice by the people, and got involved in the whole birther movement.

          I'm voting for Hillary. Not because she's a woman, although I would like to see a woman president in the U.S. in my life time. She has the best resume and most experience of anyone running on either side. That should count for something. Many of the "scandals" she is accused of are just over hyped from FOX news. Colin Powell and Condi Rice used their own servers, and now the R's want to indict her over that. They just keep harping on the same stuff, no matter how many investigations clear her. I don't know how this climate of making up facts and ignoring the truth got accepted, but it's crazy..

          People forget, Obama was a one term senator,and so are Rubio and Cruz. They simply don't have experience or the time in to know the other senators and people they have to make deals with, and that hurts all of us. Hillary knows a lot of R's and can work with them, hopefully stopping these ridiculous shutdowns of government which cost us so much money. I know we can't just fire senators since we elect them, but when they don't work, they should not be paid, just like us.

          1. GA Anderson profile image85
            GA Andersonposted 9 months ago in reply to this

            "Colin Powell and Condi Rice used their own servers, and now the R's want to indict her over that."

            Oops, maybe a little detail might be helpful.

            No, they did not use their own servers.
            Powell received two non-classified, (at the time), emails from the State department's communications system, forwarded by an assistant to his, (Powell's), personal email account, (not his personal server).

            Secretary Rice did not use an email system at all - much less a personal server. It was one of her assistants that received the disputed emails.

            Most stories found by this Google search reporting this also mentioned the facts I just did. Did you miss these details, or were they not important to your point?

            GA

            1. Misfit Chick profile image93
              Misfit Chickposted 9 months ago in reply to this

              Gosh, let's hype up one minor thing and ignore the other good points that were made. I have personally never been bothered by the fact that Hillary wanted to use email and had her own servers - or that Obama wanted to have a Blackberry when he took office. It is how business gets done in this world, now. I don't know how any politician operates without them - but apparently they do, ha! The email stuff is a non-issue for me. As far as I'm concerned - she found a way to get things done efficiently.

              1. GA Anderson profile image85
                GA Andersonposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                I mostly agree with you on this email server point, so where's your beef with my correcting an incorrect assertion?

                ps I do disagree with almost all of Jean's points about Hillary, but those were subjective opinions, (we all get to have those), which I would be more than glad to debate. Her assertions about Powell and Rice however, were incompletely stated facts, (unlike opinions, we don't all get our own), leading to a false impression. Hence my response.

                GA

            2. Jean Bakula profile image96
              Jean Bakulaposted 9 months ago in reply to this

              It is all petty stuff rehashed over and over. The R' s want to go back after all investigations and mark emails classified after the fact. That is illegal. Just admit you will always find something to accuse her of, you don't like her. At least that's honest.

              1. rhamson profile image75
                rhamsonposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                I think the issue is clear enough. Yes the GOP want to fry Hillary on the email issue. But why did she have to have a separate private email to conduct her official business. If it was a private email server she should have only used it for personal communications. Her comingling the two, private and personal, emails was in direct violation of State Department policy and now that she is being called on account of it we are to believe it was a mistake or she did not know. It is all a part of her dishonesty and is now she wants to caste it off like she did with Whitewater, Vince Foster and the many other myriad issues that have surrounded her and her husband.

                If you love Hillary this will all fall on deaf ears. If you love Hillary you will accept the sexism issue as well. The bottom line is that I believe the closets are too full to allow her and her baggage to occupy the White House again.

                1. Misfit Chick profile image93
                  Misfit Chickposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                  If I understand you correctly - R's are mad at Hillary for the email stuff because she MIXED personal emails with working emails? Maybe I'm not getting it... But again, that is a NORMAL WAY to conduct business these days. It is a time-saver. She hid the fact that she was doing it because it is a STUPID rule in this day and age. A stupid rule that R's have ramped into more imaginary 'baggage' against her. Every nominee has baggage, I'm sure. But I am the most confident having the past experience and wisdom of Hillary on the Hill. Trump is a bull in a China shop. They 'might' make a good team - but even that is really scary. I mean, how would you control something like his big, offensive mouth?

                  1. Alternative Prime profile image86
                    Alternative Primeposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                    Just like the Republican Led "Benghazi Hearings SHAM" and other RIGHT Wing "FICTIONAL Tales", some of Hillary's E-mail's were  "Classified" after the FACT, Retroactively, which is fine but indicates NO mis-conduct on her part unless of course she used the system to intentionally SHARE NUCLEAR BOMB Blueprints or "Trump Hair PLUG & How to FLEECE Innocent Consumer" Secrets with Russia or some other unsavvory entity which we all know will be the next "Angle" BACKWARD CONservative Republican's will try to PEDDLE via FOX Loser Snooze channel  ~ smile

                    We all understand the "Right WING Conspiracy" against Hillary is certainly "Alive & Well" because CONservatives FEAR her Powerful Message & Competence ~

                    Everyone on the inside understands the fact that either a Hillary or Bernie Nominee spells a "Wipe - OUT" for CONservative Republicans in November 2016 ~

                  2. Rodeon profile image63
                    Rodeonposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                    Sometimes, big offending mouths are willing to speak certain truths that calm, civilized mouths may never even dream of speaking.

                  3. RJ Schwartz profile image92
                    RJ Schwartzposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                    Obviously your high level of support for Mrs. Clinton is clouding your visions in this entire discussion.  Hillary went through a lot of trouble to set up her own server to avoid accountability to the American People - it wasn't for convenience, or because of having to carry multiple devices as she claims (anyone knows you can access multiple accounts on a smart phone) - she put her entire inner circle on the server as well to avoid accountability to the American People.  You can criticize Mr. Trump for his angry approach, but he is the only candidate which is truly expressing how most of America feels and that is why he gets support.  Clinton is getting matched blow for blow by a Socialist for goodness sake - America has never been socialist, but Democrats would rather look to him rather than support her and her mountains of baggage and deception.  I'm sorry that you and so many other women can only see the fact that she is a woman and somehow equate that to she'll be a good leader for America. It's funny how you say Republicans are hyping up the whole e-mail issue and how the rule is stupid, when deep down you know that she is going to fall from grace because of it.  Tell me what she's actually accomplished while in an elected office?  She only had 3, yes 3 bills sponsored in 8 years of the Senate and they were all minor ones and had nothing to do with public policy.  When she was APPOINTED SOS, she proved to be a poor leader, presided over a foreign policy that was a disaster, destroying the stability of the Middle East and de-facto creating the global refugee crisis we see happening.  Her participation and now backing away from the Iranian nuclear deal is another failure and its dissolving before our eyes and Iran launched a nuke test the other day.  You might not like Trump, but he's a real expert on trade, monetary issues, and running lean and efficient businesses - exactly what America needs right now.

                  4. rhamson profile image75
                    rhamsonposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                    The emails are only the tip of the iceberg. She has a lot more baggage then we even know. Elizabeth Warren would have been the best person the Dems should have gotten behind. With Hillary she only worries about what you want to have her tell you and not the outcome. Typical establishment bought politician.

                    I have no love for Trump but he does get things done. Maybe that should say something.

              2. GA Anderson profile image85
                GA Andersonposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                Okay, I don't trust her. And I don't agree with your opinion of her qualifications. But so what? We all get to have our opinions, whether they are right or wrong. I did not criticize your opinion of her.

                That was not the point of my response to you. I did not pick on Hillary. I did not promote some petty transgression. And I did not get into why I thought your opinion of Hillary's qualifications was wrong. I simply pointed out that you made a statement that wasn't true.

                GA

                1. Jean Bakula profile image96
                  Jean Bakulaposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                  I didn't take it personally. It's not a great bunch of candidates to choose from. I am coming from the point of view that all politicians lie to a certain extent, or there's a lot about them we don't know. The Clintons always fought dirty, and if she is up against Trump, it will be the worst we've seen. I still don't think the emails are a big thing, no matter what she does, or did 20 years ago, will always be criticized by a certain few. Nobody's perfect. And I think it's a credit she stayed married, somebody else acted like that was bad. It's obvious it's a political marriage, where Bill and Hillary have a meeting of the minds. Plus I think she probably still cares for him anyway, it's not unheard of for people to forgive one another in a marriage.

                  The attention Sanders and Trump are getting prove how sick everyone is of Clintons and Bushes. And Trump used to be a D anyway. Maybe he could make good deals, but unless he learns to behave better, he's scary.

                  Cruz is disliked buy almost everyone. Rubio might be a good President 10 years from now, he doesn't seem ready for Prime Time. People should have taken a better look at Kasick, sp?  He seems reasonable. I think the problem is that every time the R's lose, they misinterpret that as thinking the public wants them to go farther right. Now the tea party has ruined the Republican party, and moderate, normal R's won't stand up against them. D's may make the same mistake and go too far to the left because of Sanders in time. It's a mess, and the process seems to get less democratic all the time.

      2. cheaptrick profile image64
        cheaptrickposted 9 months ago in reply to this

        That short line "the lesser of two evils" kind of cancels out the word 'Choice' doesn't it?When you have to 'Choose' between two evils;that's the same as saying We're going to shoot you in the head BUT!...You get to 'Choose' which of these two guns we'll use to kill you...
        Politics:Just another fake failed reality show...every word scripted...with the winner "Chosen" long ago...and not by "We the People"...

        1. Live to Learn profile image81
          Live to Learnposted 8 months ago in reply to this

          Ooh. I like that. Couldn't agree more.

    2. PrettyPanther profile image86
      PrettyPantherposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      I think he would be bad for everyone, not just women.  I don't necessarily think Hillary would be better for women than, say, Sanders, but between her and Trump there should be no contest.  Yes, Hillary has her establishment credentials, and a lot of people don't like her and don't trust her, but when it comes to her actual policy positions, her intelligence, and her experience, she is head and shoulders above Trump.

      1. Misfit Chick profile image93
        Misfit Chickposted 9 months ago in reply to this

        Thank you. That is how I was hoping people would see it. It's not like I don't think the GOP should find a good candidate to go up against Hillary - but sheesh, make it a good one.  Don't make divisions deeper - that is what Trump would do.

    3. RJ Schwartz profile image92
      RJ Schwartzposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      America already has seen disasterous results in voting by skin color, now you want to repeat the cycle in voting by sex?  Please tell me her accomplishments in previous elected offices and her shortcomings, then compare them to others....that's how we the people vote.

      Your message is that as a liberal, you think you are right....Obama has been the worst divisionary president ever.  Trump is for America first, Hillary is for Hillary first, the Clinton Foundation second, money third, etc.

      1. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 9 months ago in reply to this

        That sir, is utter bilge. Your are wearing the Trump badge in plain site. This is the kind of rubbish thinking that attracts people to Trump. What are you talking about. 'voting by skin color'?. Obviously you are separating how WE people vote from how THEY, and RJ, it is total nonsense. Define WE and They? The divisiveness of Trump over all groups would make Obama like Jesus in comparison. How about checking yourself?

        1. RJ Schwartz profile image92
          RJ Schwartzposted 9 months ago in reply to this

          Obama got elected because he was black.  He was unqualified at the time.  Don't play the surprised role, it's beneath you.

          1. Credence2 profile image86
            Credence2posted 9 months ago in reply to this

            Obama was elected in response to a GOP economic disaster the train wreck of Republican economic policies responsible for the downturn of 2008. Think hard.  Under those circumstances almost Democrat could have won., and I suppose Trump is qualified? I doubt it.

            You are operating within the 'bubble' of rightwing resentment and confusion. Why not cut the charades and explain how was elected because he was black?

            1. RJ Schwartz profile image92
              RJ Schwartzposted 9 months ago in reply to this

              I'm not in a bubble - he brought blacks out to vote, which is great when a candidate can get people to participate.  It's not racist.  Trumps doing a similar thing.  Be a realist and see it for what it is.

              1. Credence2 profile image86
                Credence2posted 9 months ago in reply to this

                So, blacks do not have the right to vote now, right. Blacks vote Democratic, Kerry won 88 percent of the Black vote in 2004 and Obama won 95% of Black voters in 2008. So the outcome of an Obama presidency was due to this 7 percent? That is pretty lame, I'd say.

                It is lot more than the surplus of black voters that put Obama over the top. I see exactly what it is Trump attracts the right wing crowd, so if he wins I can say the white rightwingers (color based) is responsible for the Trump victory, is that OK? It is ok for me to say this on the same premise that you make for Obama?

                1. RJ Schwartz profile image92
                  RJ Schwartzposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                  Absolutely - I've already alluded to it myself.  Outcomes of elections are when large blocks of people who feel disenfranchised step up and vote.

                  1. Credence2 profile image86
                    Credence2posted 9 months ago in reply to this

                    Ok, fair enough....

    4. jackclee lm profile image80
      jackclee lmposted 8 months ago in reply to this

      The only Conservative left in this race is Ted Cruz.  Why is he not under your consideration? In my humble opinion, voters needs to pay attention to the candidates and do a little research. Don't be fooled by the media hype and the reality TV antics of some candidates. Ask yourself what is important to you and what is the most important attribute of a President? As Reagan famously said, we need bold colors and not pastels...

  2. Misfit Chick profile image93
    Misfit Chickposted 9 months ago

    Yes. I think it is very ridiculous that Donald Trump is even in the presidential nomination mix. He lost me a long time ago when he cheated on the beautiful Ivana and then married his (admittedly equally beautiful) mistress. IF we're going to judge people on such shallow things for president... Who dealt with that kind of lewd, embarrassing situation better?

    1. RJ Schwartz profile image92
      RJ Schwartzposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      WTF does a divorce have to do with running Ameica?  Hillary should have divorced Bill, but she was power hungry...don't mean to burst your bubble

  3. Kathleen Cochran profile image84
    Kathleen Cochranposted 9 months ago

    Is anyone interested in voting for the most qualified candidate?  When we put a person in the oval office, that is all that is going to matter.

    My question is this:  Why couldn't Republicans find one or two reasonable candidates to run for the highest office in the land?  I can think of several and I'm a Democrat!

    1. Live to Learn profile image81
      Live to Learnposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      They did, in my opinion. John Kasich. That hasn't gone over too well.

      Also, Carly Fiorina (or how ever you spell it). Although I did get a little put out with her on her emotional complaints about Planned Parenthood.

    2. Misfit Chick profile image93
      Misfit Chickposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      Yes! I can even think of a few female Republican candidates that I LIKE, ha! No, it does not have to be a woman - but neither should women be condoning Trump. Every woman - conservative, liberal or in-between - should be shunning him for this nomination; or at the very least, not considering him.

      I am very much looking forward to the day when we can have a country that is neither 'conservative' nor 'liberal' - but some kind of happy-go-lucky mix in between that includes us all. I KNOW that the GOP has people that would make good candidates. Trump is just not one of them.

    3. RJ Schwartz profile image92
      RJ Schwartzposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      Most don't want to take a pay cut......

    4. savvydating profile image85
      savvydatingposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      Actually, Kasich is reasonable! Very much so. He's also a real Republican.
      As for Trump, he is not a Republican. He is a Democrat pretending to be something else, which is why 65% of Republicans reject him. He is actually getting many of his votes from Democrats and Independents. Once America wakes up and rejects him as the nominee once and for all, he will turn around and support Hillary---just as he always has.

      1. Misfit Chick profile image93
        Misfit Chickposted 9 months ago in reply to this

        I am going to be watching for that prediction. He is certainly putting on a great show. If he is just the opening act of this election - he's doing a great job. I think he is inspiring people to get their butts out there and vote!! If he accomplishes that - it would not be a bad thing. smile

  4. ahorseback profile image48
    ahorsebackposted 9 months ago

    Every election cycle that comes along proves to me that  most voters live inside of  very small politi--maturity  bubbles !    You hate Trump because he's a pig , yet  praise Hillary who stayed married to one .     You hate higher taxes but praise Bernie for his socialist- utopian-  free stuff campaign ,  you don't like Cruz because he's for smaller government , but  want less federal restrictions and involvement in state or local controls to be the main  topic . 

    The new political election maturity is  shallow , selfish and unvetting  !  Entitlements are the new   and latest attraction , especially among the younger voters , organized labor , free education , civil liberties over public responsibilities   are the new norms.

    I personally see no one  worthy of voting for , we are simply picking the  best of the worse  in this cycle.

    1. Live to Learn profile image81
      Live to Learnposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      +1

  5. Misfit Chick profile image93
    Misfit Chickposted 9 months ago

    "The new political election maturity is shallow, selfish and unvetting..." I totally agree with that statement. It has a LOT to do with the 'way we have become' since the Internet and media have started taking advantage of it. We are bombarded with information overload at any given moment; and people either change their minds easily or stubbornly cling to the threads of propaganda that they want to become a reality.

    If you think about it, the way people vote has changed since the Internet; and young people have grown up with it. The concept of 'really knowing' a candidate and being able to compare candidates has been replaced by a media circus that does as good a job of twisting things the way media mongrols want things to go. For well over a decade, mosts people have been voting based on their emotions and beliefs that are dumped on their by whichever popular social commentators they like the best - like Rush Limbaugh or Bill Meyer.

    I remember back in the day, many people felt comfortable voting for either major party - and the reasons depended on individual platforms of the candidates. These days, people are AFRAID to vote for the 'other party' because conservatives and liberals have both taken things to the extremes in order to 'get the attention' of information-bombarded consituents.

    So, these have been our choices: a dark-colored President with radical new ideals that LITERALLY terrified people just because of his name, and a formidable woman who 'remained married to a pig' on the one side; and demoralizing Christian conservatives who insist that this country NOT ONLY needs to be run on their version of a man-written book they call the Bible; but he MUST BE from the 1% crowd.

    If there is ever to be a seriously-majority voted in candidate that is acceptable to both sides - the extremist behaviors and ideals need to be dropped. This country will NEVER move forward at this point anymore UNTIL we ALL do that.

    But, it is so much more fun to fight and complain about things, isn't it? *WE* each know what is best for this country and no one else does. So people think, "You're stuff is ALWAYS crap and I'm a saint."

    The fact that everything is ALWAYS a big huge fight to get the littlest things done is dispicable. Why can't Democrats & Republicans co-exist and mesh the good things into this country from each of their parties?

    This has been the biggest stumbling block for America - infighting. Hell, a WAR seems to be the ONLY thing that 'brings us together' sometimes. It's sick.

  6. PrettyPanther profile image86
    PrettyPantherposted 9 months ago

    I am not a Hillary fan, but I am having a hard time getting bent out of shape over the email scandal.  Just doesn't get me riled up like it does some people.  I even asked my husband to explain why he is so perturbed about it, because I keep thinking I must be missing something.  Best I can tell, she used a personal server to send work emails that were marked as classified after the fact.  Okay, not smart, but also done by many other high-ranking government employees at one time or another.  I know that doesn't make it okay, but I just can't get all fired up about it.

    1. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      The truth of the email matter that is not the only reason why I get worked up about it is that when she became Secretary of State she signed an agreement acknowledging that State Department correspondence was classified even if it was not marked immediately. The connotation is that she knew it was illegal and did it anyway. It could be construed to mean that she wanted control over all her communications so that if at a later date there would be any recourse on what she said or admitted to in those emails she could erase them. It just so happens a good deal of them were indeed erased.

      Controversy follows this woman like a dark star. Could we please have a better representative than this?

      1. Misfit Chick profile image93
        Misfit Chickposted 9 months ago in reply to this

        Controversy follows all politicians - you have to take the good with the bad because they are all human. I don't vote on who had the most or the biggest controversies - how can I?!!! How can anyone?!!

        I vote on who I think would be the best person for the job. Sure, Hillary could have been using email to cover some controversy or conspiracy. But honestly - that would be a pretty stupid way to 'hide' information; because digital information is so easy to be discovered and traced. As we have seen. High-security stuff doesn't usually get leaked via digital means - because it can be traced and manipulated. It is more difficult to do that with a hard copy.

        1. RJ Schwartz profile image92
          RJ Schwartzposted 9 months ago in reply to this

          You'll defend her right up until she loses the election and then some

    2. Jean Bakula profile image96
      Jean Bakulaposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      I don't get it either. I'm sure some IT group sets up all the tech stuff for a President or high ranking official, and however it gets done, has to be approved by somebody. I doubt the person does it themselves. In the years before people had computers, they had to communicate by letters, much easier to snoop in that case. It's just another thing the R's are bringing up after numerous investigations that yield nothing. As I said before, possibly on a different thread, Hillary already handed over any classified info a long time ago. Now, because R's are looking for anything against her, they are taking documents after the fact and trying to call them "classified." It's not legal to do that, ex post facto. Nobody told her she was doing something illegal at the time, if it bothered them so much, it's too late. It didn't seem to bother anyone until after she was SOS.

      Also, it was obvious she was sick. She looked like Hell and gained a lot of weight, was acting very crabby for her. I can't believe the hatred people feel for people not in their party. I never liked W, but didn't spend half my life trying to dig up garbage on them that wasn't going to stick. His staff were all war criminals who lied about nukes in Iran, and they didn't get half this much criticism. I think W is actually a good person, just took bad advice.

  7. colorfulone profile image88
    colorfuloneposted 9 months ago

    http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/12918824.jpg

    smile

  8. colorfulone profile image88
    colorfuloneposted 9 months ago

    Ilya Sheyman, the executive director of MoveOn.org Political Action, has taken credit for the violence at a cancelled Trump event last night in Chicago. He promised similar violence and disruption will occur at future Trump political events leading up to the election.

    The violent protest as I said, people like George Soros is behind this.  (Antichrist and BLM groups I mentioned)

    The group was founded with the help of the financier George Soros who donated $1.46 million to get the organization rolling. Linda Pritzker of the Hyatt hotel family gave the group a $4 million donation.

    MoveOn has consistently functioned as a lobby group for the policies of the Obama administration, including the disaster of Obamacare and the continuation of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the escalation of the war on terror that has turned America into a police and surveillance state. In 2007 it backed a bill trotted out by then Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to continue financing the occupation of Iraq.

    The violent demonstration in Chicago on Friday may represent a precursor to the sort of activity the organization will engage in as it tries to “shut down” its political enemies and elect either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.

    http://www.infowars.com/soros-funded-mo … n-chicago/

    This is NOT Trump's fault.  It is to STOP Trump and our Liberty.      .
    Trumps want to stop the Globalists, ... he loves America! 
    http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/12919509.jpg
    Illuminati Luciferian, Secret Society Marxists want CONTROL.   
    Its no secret...Wake up people! They are laughing at us. 
    ANTI-TRUMP CROWD FLIES A COMMUNIST FLAG DURING PROTEST - Democratic Socialists - more to come!

    Did you swallow the red pill or the blue pill?

 
working