jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (80 posts)

Trump vs Hillary...What say you?

  1. CCgirl profile image81
    CCgirlposted 2 months ago

    Hillary says Trump "has a long record of engaging in racist behavior".  His actions in 1973 as described by Hillary are factual.  How do you feel about this?  Will his history help or destroy any progress as t pertains to race relations?  Donald states that he settled with out "admission of guilt" but never states that he is not guilty of racist behavior.

    Hypocrisy at its' best...Hillary speaks to cyber security after sharing thousands of classified e-mails and lying about it repeatedly.  Did Donald publicly invite Putin to hack Americans?

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      It is the nature of our country that big business will be sued repeatedly.  That Trump neither pled nor was found guilty is interesting, and it was just as interesting that Clinton did not debate the point further.  She lost on that one and shut up.

      I about cracked up when that question was asked, about cyber security.  And was surprised that Clinton (or Trump) managed to sound almost reasonable about a subject neither knows anything at all about and don't dare say much about, either.

      As I recall the incident, Trump did not invite Putin to hack Americans.  He DID indicate that if it were done he would like to see the result.  And perhaps I do not recall the incident correctly.

      1. CCgirl profile image81
        CCgirlposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        Agreed, agreed and agreed.  She absolutely gave up on the topic.  Had she had any confidence in discussing the issue she would have.  He absolutely didn't invite Putin to  hack us but true to her nature she twisted the truth just enough to be believable.  I cannot believe that she spoke so confidently discussed cyber security.  It's almost like she is in denial about her actions.   Neither one added value to their campaign.  It was more similar to 2 toddlers arguing than any discussion of the real issues.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          I don't think she is in denial of her actions with emails.  She just doesn't care, as long as it doesn't disrupt her plans for the presidency.  The rules and laws other mortals must obey are not for Hillary.

          I think you're right about the toddlers.  Neither really scored heavily on each other - the question on cyber was probably the most damaging and that came from the moderator.

          1. CCgirl profile image81
            CCgirlposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            Sadly, I think you're right, she just doesn't care. I find it insulting that she believes that the American people are stupid enough to believe her. Unfortunately, at this point we are forced to choose the best of the worst and that truly saddens me.

          2. My Esoteric profile image88
            My Esotericposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            I'll repeat something I wrote in response to another comment, in case you missed it.

            I dealt with classified my whole career in the DoD.  It wasn't until about 2006, as I recall, did DoD get serious about cyber security and it was a very slow process.  In fact, an unclassified system I ran was hacked by the Chinese in 2005 or so, which was then used to hack into other AF, Army (a lot of Army), and Navy unclassified systems until it was corralled.  On the other hand, classified systems always had good security. 

            So, Clinton started her job in 2008 shortly after I retired, as Sec State shortly after DoD began getting really serious about unclassified systems.  All other agencies, including State, were years behind DoD in taking the problem seriously.

            Consequently, Hillary started out with one hand tied behind her back, cyber security-wise.  I dealt with Secret, and on a rare occasion, Top Secret info.  How much training did I get in DoD, an annual, hour-and-half long on-line training program.  In 2008, they finally sent a real person to talk to us about security.

            With that background, I can't find too much fault with Clinton, given her agency was still working in the dark ages unclassified security-wise.  The persons who are primarily responsible for sending her already classified material (very little, but there was some) are the people who sent the email in the first place.  The FBI did not find, as I recall, a single email with header information indicating it was classified at any level.

            Those three emails where the FBI found a (C) in the body of the emails were actually unclassified by the time Clinton got them ... the header info had been removed.  The (C)s should have been but weren't.

            I suspect, given how long it took DoD to get on the ball, that State finally caught up by 2012.

            That is why I have never taken HRC's email problems seriously from a security standpoint.  No question it was dumb to go around State's unclassified mail system, which, BTW, was just as vulnerable as her home grown system.  And it was even more stupid the way she tapped danced around the issue (which is what 99% of politicians do) rather than meeting it head on.  (Sorry for the Hub)

        2. Ken Burgess profile image80
          Ken Burgessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          "she twisted the truth just enough to be believable"

          A typical politician.

        3. My Esoteric profile image88
          My Esotericposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          “Russia, if you’re listening,
          I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,”

          This said after Putin hacked the DNC.  So, let's parse a bit.

          The first statement is self-evident.

          I hope you are able to find ,,,  That is FUTURE TENSE.  Past tense is "I hope you have found ,,, 

          The ONLY interpretation possible is that Donald Trump did ask Russia (Putin) to do something in the future, to whit: "please spy on the US some more and find the 30,000 missing Clinton emails."

    2. Ken Burgess profile image80
      Ken Burgessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      I think there were no knock out blows in that debate.

      I think Trump had the most accurate one liner of the night, after she went on a lengthy spiel about an issue he said (and I'm paraphrasing):
      "They're just words, she's a typical politician."

      Clinton was the better rehearsed, she had obviously memorized many of her talking points, and knew what message she wanted to relay.

      But I think people are tired of the political BS and rehearsed answers, I think they are tired of buying into the politician who polls people to find out what they want to hear, and then gets up there and blathers some promises that they want to believe in.

      I think Trump came across strong for the first half hour, he came across as anything but a typical politician, and he spoke to the real problems in our country, which are the politicians themselves and the corruption in Washington... the trade deals and wasted taxpayer trillions that benefit Corporations and Wall St. but screw over hard working Americans.

      And that is just it... Trump may not articulate himself as well as one would hope for, but he comes across as far more genuine than Hillary, and most importantly far more aware of what makes the Economy tick.

      And the bottom line is, if you fix the economy, and have jobs being created and wages going up... then almost everything else gets fixed... people go to work, they pay taxes, those taxes go to new schools and new bridges which employs more people, and so on... our problem right now is Washington seems intent on making the world a better place (more jobs for Mexico, for China, for India, at American worker's expense) while letting America falter.

      1. CCgirl profile image81
        CCgirlposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        Hillary must rehearse because she is utterly fake.  She is obviously the candidate with most experience  but far from the most believable.  She is and always be a hypocrite and in my opinion extremely fickle.  She has repeatedly back peddled and therefore destroyed any trust that the American people have in her.

        1. My Esoteric profile image88
          My Esotericposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          Hey Ken, can I operate on your brain if you need it?  (no, I am not a neurosurgeon.) If you say yes, then I can see why you support Trump.

          There is certain training, experience, knowledge, temperament, intelligence, and so on to be either a successful world leader or neurosurgeon; the difference are the details.  Trump has NONE of those things while Hillary does.  ANY independent mind can see that.

          1. Ken Burgess profile image80
            Ken Burgessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            If you had a doctor, who was going to operate on YOUR brain, well trained, one of the top in his field, you were glad to get him.

            And then you find out, he has taken a few million in 'donations' from a business competitor that has been trying to put you out of work for years.  And his 'campaign' which just got him the position as head neurosurgeon at the most renowned hospital in the nation, was funded by your ex-wife who you happen to have left as the primary beneficiary in your will (you forgot to change it after the divorce).

            Good luck on your operation pal.

            1. My Esoteric profile image88
              My Esotericposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              If this were true - well trained, one of the top in his field, you were glad to get him.- then I would still use him since all the rest are unsubstantiated allegations or just the normal way business is done in the medical field.

              I look for competency first, the rest is secondary unless it impedes their ability to perform the job they were hired to do.  That is why most of the nation didn't really care about my neurosurgeon's spouse's peccadilloes when doing their job.

              BTW, you didn't say if I could operate on you.  If I can't, why not?  I am as qualified to do that as Trump is to run the country.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                To continue the analogy, when the biggest investigative agency in the country finds out that your neurosurgeon fails to wash your skin before opening (because it's a hassle to do that), does not use sterile scalpels (because it's quicker to bring the kitchen knife) and doesn't scrub his own hands (because he's in a hurry), will you still use him?

              2. Ken Burgess profile image80
                Ken Burgessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                Well the choice I am given then is I either choose you, or I choose the neurosurgeon who I know is determined to end my life.

                Not much of a choice is there?

                1. My Esoteric profile image88
                  My Esotericposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                  Your answer, Ken, speaks for itself.

                  1. Ken Burgess profile image80
                    Ken Burgessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                    Exactly, it does doesn't it....

                    I can only hope I am totally wrong in my opinions, and  who-ever wins the election proves to be far more concerned, capable, and less corrupt than given credit for.

                    1. My Esoteric profile image88
                      My Esotericposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                      I second that.

      2. Stevennix2001 profile image84
        Stevennix2001posted 2 months ago in reply to this

        Like Joe Pesci said in "My Cousin Vinny",  "You're getting f**ked one way or other."   That's exactly how I feel about Trump and Hilary.  Both are liars, and only want what's best for themselves.  I don't trust any of them as far I can pick either of them up and throw them across the room.  hmm

        1. My Esoteric profile image88
          My Esotericposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          I actually don't think Trump is very racist, I think he is opportunistic and takes very racist's positions and in doing so I definitely think he has set race relations back on its heels.  I do think, however, Trump is a world class misogynist.

          I dealt with classified my whole career in the DoD.  It wasn't until about 2006, as I recall, did DoD get serious about cyber security and it was a very slow process.  In fact, an unclassified system I ran was hacked by the Chinese in 2005 or so, which was then used to hack into other AF, Army (a lot of Army), and Navy unclassified systems until it was corralled.  On the other hand, classified systems always had good security. 

          So, Clinton started her job in 2008 shortly after I retired, as Sec State shortly after DoD began getting really serious about unclassified systems.  All other agencies, including State, were years behind DoD in taking the problem seriously.

          Consequently, Hillary started out with one hand tied behind her back, cyber security-wise.  I dealt with Secret, and on a rare occasion, Top Secret info.  How much training did I get in DoD, an annual, hour-and-half long on-line training program.  In 2008, they finally sent a real person to talk to us about security.

          With that background, I can't find too much fault with Clinton, given her agency was still working in the dark ages unclassified security-wise.  The persons who are primarily responsible for sending her already classified material (very little, but there was some) are the people who sent the email in the first place.  The FBI did not find, as I recall, a single email with header information indicating it was classified at any level.

          Those three emails where the FBI found a (C) in the body of the emails were actually unclassified by the time Clinton got them ... the header info had been removed.  The (C)s should have been but weren't.

          I suspect, given how long it took DoD to get on the ball, that State finally caught up by 2012.

          That is why I have never taken HRC's email problems seriously from a security standpoint.  No question it was dumb to go around State's unclassified mail system, which, BTW, was just as vulnerable as her home grown system.  And it was even more stupid the way she tapped danced around the issue (which is what 99% of politicians do) rather than meeting it head on.  (Sorry for the Hub)

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            There is only one small problem with that scenario.  That is that the rules were in place, Clinton knew them and couldn't be bothered to use them; her time was more important than any security rules.  In addition, her UNclassified emails were absolutely to be saved forever, and she knew that, too, before she deleted them to prevent finding any more classified stuff.

            I'm sure that the software and hardware were both primitive by today's standards, but that was never a reason not to do what she could.  Nor is it reasonable to blame the people that sent it; they had no way of knowing Clinton was violating the rules.  It ended up on a non-secure server, but that is hardly the fault of the sender.

            1. My Esoteric profile image88
              My Esotericposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              I hate chronological format, but the forum before this was too long to use threaded, sorry.

              I don't how true your scenario is, Wilderness.  Those rules may have been in place, one doesn't know until you read them, but IF they were clear they were obviously being ignored by those before her; at least according to Colin Powell.  And he would be Much more aware of their importance than she, given his history. 

              So, his actions, and Rice's put into question, at least in my mind, what rules really were in place when Clinton took over his job. 

              Now, ask me if protecting herself from FOIA was part of her reason, I will tell you yes, as is true for Powell, Rice and I am sure many at her level of government, it would be a natural thing to do.  Would it be right?  No, it wouldn't, but then speeding is not right either, yet everybody does it. 

              I think what is needed is for all high government officials, elected or not, should be investigated for the same infractions.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                The rules changed partway through the term of Powell's successor.  Rice, wasn't it?  So if Rice used a private server I'm not sure if it was legal or not.  It was for Powell.  Can't give you a link (sorry), but I did look it up and check - that's what I found.  I remember I found the info on an official govt. site, not a news site or anything like that. 

                I would not disagree with checking for private servers for all high officials.  And if they have them, check for official messages.  And if there are any, look for classified information.  And if it is found, indict them.  I might be lenient if a couple are found - senders CAN make mistakes as to what email to use - but 100 of them in 50 threads and you know the receiver is allowing it to happen.

                1. My Esoteric profile image88
                  My Esotericposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                  The point I am trying to make is that from the hacked Powell emails, it was clear he advised Hillary on how to get around FOIA.

                2. Ken Burgess profile image80
                  Ken Burgessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                  Just to clarify a couple of things.

                  First there is a difference between classified, secret, and top secret.

                  Second, the FBI was investigating whether Hillary Clinton and her aids took material from the government's classified network so that it could be sent to her private e-mail address.  Which by the end of all this they concluded that had been done.  So the next issue became what level of classified was it?

                  NOW what I see being talked about in regards to Powell, Clinton, Rice, etc. is that they had a private server, and that they used a private server to send emails to other government officials... what is important however is WHAT was sent.  Powell had a private email account, but he wasn't using it to send Top Secret information to government officials, that distinction is important.

                  There is a difference also between Classified and Top Secret, as I had mentioned.  The Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPR net) and Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System (JWICS) are NOT connected to the unclassified system, known as the Non-Classified Internet Protocol Router Network (NIPR net). You cannot e-mail from one system to the other, though you can use NIPR net to send e-mails to some government  accounts/addresses.

                  What Clinton and her aids were accused of doing, and indeed DID do, was take highly classified information from the SIPR net, as well as even the super-secure JWICS, and put them into emails sent to Clinton's unclassified private e-mail account/server.

                  The CIA much earlier in the process of this investigation flagged several of her emails as containing ultra-secret Sensitive Compartmented Information... in other words, she and her aids are responsible for putting Top Secret and above information onto the regular internet for anyone to find, that's as layman as I can say it.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                    Makes sense.  I'll also go on to point out that at the time of Clintons tenure, it was the rule (not law, but firm rule) that ALL official emails be saved forever for posterity.  So she deleted them.

                  2. My Esoteric profile image88
                    My Esotericposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                    No, it was not concluded they had taken classified information FROM a classified system, modified it, and sent it to Clinton on an unclassified system.  Show me anywhere in his testimony and statement where he said such a thing. 

                    There is NO difference between TS, S, C and the word "classified"; all three are considered classified.

                    And so far, all the FBI has found that had classified marking at all were three emails and they were, according to the State Department, incorrectly marked and NOT ONE email that reached Clinton had a classification designation in the header information were it belongs.  The 3 out 50,000 instances where a (C) was found was in the body of the message, and even then, it was the lowest level, not highest level as you suggest.

                    You may find this interesting - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/us/cl … .html?_r=0

                    1. Ken Burgess profile image80
                      Ken Burgessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                      Yes, there is a considerable difference between classified, Top Secret, and above.

                      One difference is who is allowed access to that information, anything considered Top Secret is only supposed to be accessed by those with Top Secret clearance, and no one else.

                      “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” the FBI director said.

                      That is word scrabble for, we don't feel they intended to break the law, but yeah they broke the law.

                      He said Clinton and her staff sent 110 emails in 52 chains containing information that was classified at the time. Eight of those emails carried top secret information, eight contained classified information and 36 had secret info.

                      Arguing it further is pointless, its like banging one's head against a wall and expecting the wall to get out of the way.  People who don't want to believe her gross negligence and reckless regard for Top Secret information is a serious issue, or a criminal issue, aren't going to believe it.

                      But it is a criminal issue, is a serious issue, and it says a lot about her belief that she is above the rules, the laws, that everyone else is expected to follow.  Whether or not she got help on how to bypass the law from Powell or anyone else is irrelevant.  If I ask someone how to break into a bank, and then I go break into a bank, it doesn't make it allright because they had broken into banks before and told me how to do it.

          2. Ken Burgess profile image80
            Ken Burgessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            What? You dealt with classified your whole career with the DoD and they only got serious about cyber security in 2006?

            What a load of crap.

            I was dealing with Top Secret communications back in 2001, which ran on the SIPR net, the DoD doesn't even send secret information on 'normal' NIPR internet. 

            For those that don't know this... The government has separate servers, routers, encryption, etc. THAT is why what Clinton did (private server which could be hacked by any half-wit hacker in the world, and likely was) was a much bigger deal than most people will ever know.

            It isn't end of the world, Benedict Arnold type of treason, but it isn't the same as getting a ticket for speeding either. And its closer to the former than the latter.   It should never have been done, she should have never been so cavalier with such responsibility and authority as she was... and in a lot of ways it displays character issues just as bad as Trump has, arrogant, rules don't apply to her, she is above having to follow the same laws/procedures the rest of the country must follow.

        2. 59
          frumpletonposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          I don't trust either Trump or Hillary.  I think I'll do a write-in and put down Clint Eastwood.  Even if I am throwing away my vote, I'd rather vote for Dirty Harry than any of these other clowns

      3. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 2 months ago

        Hillary was poised and rehearsed, as always. Some people will find that admirable. Some won't.

        Trump started out okay but became increasingly incoherent the last half of the debate. I think he got tired. My son joked that his anti-dementia meds were wearing off.

        Trump performed best on the economy. Clinton slam dunked him on foreign policy. He is appallingly ignorant about how we work with other countries.

        He had no answer to his record of stiffing people who have a lot less money than he does. No apologies.. Clinton didn't say much about her emails, just that she was wrong.

        Weird sniffing and fidgeting from Trump. Maybe his fans find that refreshing. I found it disturbing and reminiscent of a kindergartner squirming while the teacher talks.

        1. ahorseback profile image52
          ahorsebackposted 2 months ago

          Bottom line America is unmoving in Ideology ,   If  you love the Clinton Dynasty , you still do . If you love Change from the usual , you chose Trump .   What doesn't change is the media driven Bias Machine,
          Lester holt  will be the Next Press Secretary for Clinton , if she wins.   He was the only winner , he beat Trump for Clintons benefit..

          1. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            Typical whining about bias. Hillary didn't collapse. Donald was the one who appeared fatigued and became increasingly incoherent as the debate wore on. Lester let him talk with minimal interruptions. Trump dug his own grave with his lack of knowledge on foreign policy and pretty much everything else.

            1. ahorseback profile image52
              ahorsebackposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              How doesn't it feel to have swallowed the  bias , hook line and sinker ,  I mean  aren't you able to see the destruction of liberal ideology in America  just in the last eight years --say nothing about the inner city slow melt down around you , Oh I forgot , you live where man to man -woman to woman  , no one makes eye contact and avoids the downtown area of the city like the bubonic plague .

              I know its hard to break from liberal P.C. stronghold but don't be afraid to learn how to  think for YOURSELF.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                PrettyPantherposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                LOL, once again, your ridiculous stereotyping has led you astray. I live in a small town of a little over 5000 people where I grew up and rarely go to the grocery store without running into a friend or neighbor.

                You repeatedly mischaracterize my positions and who I am because you ignore any response that doesn't fit your pre-conceived notion of "liberal." How does it feel to be so wrong so often?

                1. Ken Burgess profile image80
                  Ken Burgessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                  Here is the problem... regardless of what side you are on.
                  NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP, etc... everything Trump is saying about them is essentially true, when he stated that Mexico taxes American made items imported into Mexico at 16% and we don't tax stuff coming in from Mexico, etc.  these are the issues harmful to our economy and jobs.
                  When he says their is 2.5 Trillion dollars out there companies can't bring back into America because of our laws and taxes, this is true, it has been talked about and written about for decades now.
                  If people want AMERICA to have a better economy, if people want AMERICANS to have more jobs and better wages... then these issues need to be addressed.
                  No one can say for sure Trump would be able to change them... but I can tell you with a fair amount of certainty Clinton will not.  She has not only defended these trade agreements, but she is 'funded' by the very factions that benefit from them the most. 
                  Our politicians are not serving our best interests, they are serving the lobbyists, Wall St., etc. whatever benefits trade agreements like NAFTA had, the scale is now heavily tipped in the other direction and these agreements need to be redone, reconsidered or done away with all together... we cannot compete in a world where imports from China. Mexico, etc. are not taxed, but our products going to those countries are.
                  We cannot compete for jobs here in America when companies cane use H1-B visas to replace American workers for half their salary.
                  People need to realize that right now NEITHER party is helping Americans, if we don't, if we continue to bicker over petty issues and act as if one Party or another actually has all the answers, we all lose... and the only winners are those making the politicians dance to their tune in Washington.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                    PrettyPantherposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                    As I stated earlier, Trump was strongest when talking about trade and the economy. Is that enough, though? His amateurish lack of knowledge on pretty much every other issue coupled with his child-like responses when challenged make it hard to imagine him winning anything, no matter how often he says he is "da best."

                    1. Ken Burgess profile image80
                      Ken Burgessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                      I agree absolutely, I think every rational adult has essentially said that neither choice is a good choice.
                      What we have is the Establishment's choice, the life-time politician who will not go in there and change the course the country is on, who will not change the trade agreements, the visa laws, nor anything that is directly plummeting our economy while building up our national debt to mind boggling levels.
                      VS.
                      The aged reality tv star, real estate mogul, etc. who has no couth, is as politically correct as Benny Hill, but who actually can point to what is destroying our economy, our jobs, and our ability to compete on the global stage.  And who might.... just might... despite plenty of resistance from those who control Washington, get some of these dire issues changed.

                      Is this a popularity contest... or is this about making the changes in Washington that might make all our lives better (and a better economy and more jobs is really the key to making things better... it solves so many things)?

                      1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                        PrettyPantherposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                        I was a Bernie supporter. Bernie now supports Hillary for a reason, just like I do. Even IF (and that's a very big "if") Trump could fulfill his promises on the economy, his ineptitude on foreign policy and unwillingness to learn make him unelectable in my opinion. My husband, a Republican who is retired military and worked in intelligence for over 20 years is horrified at the thought of a Trump presidency. He despises Hillary but will not vote for a man who has so little self control and is so ignorant on foreign policy and security issues.

                        1. Alternative Prime profile image83
                          Alternative Primeposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                          PP ~ An INTELLIGENCE Officer" would also understand the FACT that it would be "ILLEGAL / Gross Negligence" to give the OUR "NUCLEAR Weapon CODE" to an individual like Donald who Clearly is the Unfortunate Victim of Several STRAINs of Mental ILLNESS ~ ANGER Issues, Delusional Behavior & THOUGHTs, Paranoia just to name a FEW ~
                          He would also REALIZE the FACT that the C.I.A. would NEVER give Donald "REAL" Classified Briefings ~

                          Legally, Trump can't be PRESIDENT of the United States while in his Poor Untreated "Psychological Condition" ~ An individual must be of "SOUND Mind" to hold the OFFICE of the Presidency ~

                        2. Ken Burgess profile image80
                          Ken Burgessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                          Your husband has a right to his opinion, though I fail to see how as he was in Intelligence in the military he could find anything less loathe-some than how Clinton allowed top secret information to be available for anyone on the internet who knows how to hack into a server be readily available.
                          Or for that matter how she spoke about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia. I could go on, as someone who has served myself I have more reservations about her lies and inept dealings with foreign affairs than I do even Trump's bumblings... one can hope he would appoint the right people to Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, etc. and get the right guidance to follow.

                    2. Alternative Prime profile image83
                      Alternative Primeposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                      ONLY one Problem, when "Delusional Donald" was "QUASI-Coherent" during the first few minutes of his CATASTROPHIC Debate Performance, it was RIDDLED with "LIEs & Fabrications" as usual ~ sad ~ IMPULSIVE, Calculating? Who knows & Who CAREs at this POINT ~

                      EVEN the CEO of FORD was Compelled to "CORRECT" TRUMP's Major LIE that JOBs would be LOST which is Blatantly FALSE ~

                      Then of course his "MENTAL COLLAPSE" ensued shortly thereafter, he & his Family made a SPEEDY Exit and the rest is HISTORY ~ sad

                      Question ~ WHY Hasn't any of his FAMILY Members INTERVENED to get him DESPERATELY Needed PSYCHOLOGICAL Help ?? Is that NOT the MOST Important Pending ISSUE for them or will they simply let his Obvious Mental Deterioration "Persist & PROGRESS" until it's ALL Consuming??

                      Donald LOOKED Bad, was WEAK, Frail & Pale, DRY Hair or PLUGz, he was UNPREPARED but that's really no surprise considering he already knows MORE than OUR Generals, he was ANGRY, FRAGILE, Delusional, Deranged, Easily MANIPULATED and then of course a "COMPLETE Mental BREAKDOWN" Occured ~ sad  ~

                      Does his FAMILY & Friends even CARE about his Psychological Well BEING ??

                  2. 59
                    frumpletonposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                    Yup.  I am rebelling.  I am planning on doing a write-in for the presidency, even though my vote will be lost.  Trump says the election is rigged.  I've thought that for several years.  I don't like him and I don't like Hillary, so I'm voting for Clint Eastwood, even though he's not running

                  3. colorfulone profile image87
                    colorfuloneposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                    I totally agree that it is the trade deals that are killing America.
                    Trump said he will make fair trade deals or leave the table.
                    Hillary won't fix the problem, she is a part of the problem.

                  4. Alternative Prime profile image83
                    Alternative Primeposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                    Maybe in "Republican Pretend-Land" "Delusional Donald" tells the TRUTH, but here in the REAL-World According to "FACT-Checkers", 70% to 95% of his CLAIMs are FALSE, and that's a FACT ~

                    Almost every WORD out of his MOUTH at the Debate was a LIE, I lost Count after the first 10 or 15 MINUTEs ~ sad

                    lol ~ I suppose his DWINDLING Fan Base actually Believe his Ridiculous "DEFECTIVE Microphone" NONSENSE as his Primary EXCUSE for his Complete "Physical & Mental Debate COLLAPSE" ~ He'll be SELLING them "Trump U Diplomas" soon ~

                    lol ~ AND guess what, According to POLLs they are actually GULLIBLE enough to believe it ~ Yup, it's TRUE ~ sad

                    But anyway, here's a couple REAL FACTs for U ~

                    Trump is NOW Controlled by a few BILLIONAIREs who are RAMING their AGENDAs Down his Throat that's WHY he proposed the FOLLOWING Scams ~

                    * He has PLANs to "LOWER Wages ACROSS the Board" for all AMERICANs after he Clearly Articulated that "AMERICAN Wages are TOO HIGH" ~ HARD to Believe? Well here's the FOOTAGE of a BABBLING of LIEs, ANTI-American Rhetoric, then what he TRULY thinks of WORKERs ~

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRmi28fjNOs

                    * If he were ever ELECTED, which can NEVER Happen Legally, he had a TAX Sceme for Re-Instituting "CORPORATE Wealthfare" by actually LOWERING WALL Street Taxes from 35% DOWN to 15% which is essentially what the last REPUBLICAN Idiot George W Bush did shortly before we EXPERIENCED the WORST Financial Crisis in HISTORY ~ sad

                    "Delusional Donald" actually believes giving WEALTHY People even MORE Money will actually BENEFIT the Majority of AMERICANs ~ Or does he ?? ~ If your DUMB or Gullible to believe that one, then I"VE GOT SOME "Trump U Diplomas" to sell ya ~ smile

        2. Kathleen Cochran profile image86
          Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months ago

          All these comments could have been posted yesterday before the debate.  When you are not looking for information, you are not going to find it.  My biggest concern about this election is not who wins.  It is what I'm finding out about a considerable segment of our population.  God help us.

          1. promisem profile image95
            promisemposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            I see the potential for a one-party dictatorship all over the place.

            Massive concentration of wealth and political power.  The rise of propaganda websites. Minions who mindlessly swallow anything. Huge growth in weapons owned by certain elements. Attacks on the credibility of media, universities, democracy and even the election process (i.e., Trump saying the election is rigged if he loses).

            All typical tactics in countries that drift toward dictatorships and one-party systems. It's worrisome.

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

              It is really scary. The people aren't paying enough attention, except for maybe readers/writers like us, because we read a lot and like to be informed.

              I've said before I think schools teach civics when kids are too young to get it. Or if they persist in teaching it when they do, high school students need a refresher course. Many are shocked that the electoral college decides, and doesn't always vote the will of the people in the popular vote.

              Our country is falling apart. Others have high speed trains, or subways which are not filthy for people to get around, plus get more traffic off the roads by using public transportation. Our bridges are unsafe. We have huge flooding issues in many states. I wonder why the Army Corp of Engineers can't be working on that? I suppose they are in other countries. Sometimes charity begins at home.

              I just heard Bernie Sanders about an hour ago, he's meeting with Hillary tomorrow to discuss free education for families that make less than $125,000.00 together. I think that figure still may be a little high. And as I watched my son go through college, it was equivalent to what I learned in HS and life, so I don't think kids really need 2 more years of community college, unless it does help them get into a four year degree situation leading to a job. The bar is so low in college now, my son said that he never learned anything in college he didn't learn from my husband and me. We need more people working in the trades, nobody knows how to fix or do anything.

              I see that dictatorship coming up too.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                It's not as bad or one sided as you make it sound.

                "Others have high speed trains"

                Yes, they do.  And not a single country with significant amounts of those trains has the low population density OR the huge amounts of space that the US does.  There is a reason super mass transit isn't workable here.

                "We have huge flooding issues in many states."

                Yes we do - notably south Louisiana and along the giant waterways like the Mississippi.  If we did not insist on building there we wouldn't have a tenth the problem.  If we allowed additional, major, dam construction it would help, too.

                Our geography plays a big part in such "failures".  That's not to say that politics isn't a major cause in such things as failing bridges and water systems, though - it certainly is.

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

                  Wilderness,
                  I don't disagree, but I live in NJ, where certainly the mass transit could be made better, not to mention all the bridges and tunnels which connect NJ to NY.

                  I wasn't thinking about Louisiana, although I have fought and won environmental battles in my own area. And as you say, over development  and poor planning has also caused flooding here. You win some, you lose some.

                  I would like to see a better train system to even get us from Northern to Southern Jersey or to an area in FL that would have to be in the Northern part of the state, as Miami is disappearing at an alarming rate. A quicker way to get out West would be nice too.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                    LOL - we're all so provincial!  I live in Idaho, and we don't even get Amtrak any more.  Not enough travelers that would ever use it.

                    Yeah, I'd like to see some major mass transport from Boston to Richmond, maybe more although the Carolinas are a big empty space to cross.  And maybe from San Diego to San Francisco.  But so much of the country just can't support mass transport.  Even simple bus service can be difficult - too many miles and not enough riders.

                    You can take Amtrak across the country, but not very quickly.  I think it takes 3 days - too many stops to change passengers.  And the sleeper car is a big upgrade.

                    1. My Esoteric profile image88
                      My Esotericposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                      Amtrak stops in Sandpoint, ID.  We drug test them there.

                      Trains aren't designed to be fast,  they should be much more comfortable, especially for those taller then 5'9".  I took Amtrak from Jacksonville to N.Y. in their small sleeper; it fits one small person and my wife and I are not small by any stretch.  The much more expensive large cabin would work fine.

                      If I were 5'9" then a one-night coach would be fine because I would fit in the seat with no overhang.  Surprisingly, taking the Ecela from D.C. is quite competitive flying in time and price.

              2. My Esoteric profile image88
                My Esotericposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                Why aren't the Army Corps of Engineers working?  Can you spell Sequester and extreme conservative obstructionism?

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                  C'mon, Esoteric.  The reason the Corp isn't working is because the environmentalists won't let them, not from conservative conspiracy to shut them down!  How many nuclear plants have we built in the last 10 years?  How many dams (and how many have we torn down)?  Everything they do requires a decade of research to see if there is an insect that might die - that's the problem, and it comes from liberals, not conservatives.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image88
                    My Esotericposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                    I had heard of that conspiracy before, interesting, I'll have to look into that.  What I said was extreme conservatives were obstructionists, and they are.  I also said that it was the sequester that is limiting funds to the Corps.

                    I will further say that the GOP has stopped virtually every infrastructure bill the Democrats have put forward and have offered none of their own because they couldn't "pay" for it by cutting programs that help the American people.

                    And why is there so much research?  How about because of the willy-nilly destruction of America's environment.  I will name a few;

                    -  starting in 1990, reforestation REQUIRED by gov't finally reversed the rapid deforestation of America by logging.

                    -  from about 1958 to 1965 when I left, I watched LA slowing disappear in a blanket of dirty brown smog.  I go back today and it is mostly gone BECAUSE of strict EPA standards.

                    -  Lake Erie was declared dead from industrial pollution in 1960.  Today it is quite alive because of strict EPA regulations.

                    -  Industrial pollution led to the Cuyahoga river catching fire in 1969.  The Clean Water Act prevents that from happening today

                    - Each animal and insect has a place in the environmental chain.  Make one extinct, and the environment will get worse to some degree.  Pollution, over farming, over logging, and industry has made thousands of species go extinct over the last 100 years.  One day it will be us that go extinct by our own hand.

                    1. wilderness profile image95
                      wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                      I understand that the liberal way is to simply borrow more money or take it from the rich whenever a grand plan is conceived.  Conservatives have a different outlook: spend only what you have, and if you don't have it don't spend it. 

                      So I guess they are "obstructionists" for not buying what they cannot afford.  It's a good political term, useful for pretending there is no monetary facet to those wonderful projects.

                      Yep - we need to understand what we're doing to the environment.  But that does not mean an infinite series of "studies" for everything we do, until that project is no longer economically viable.  That's been the way of things for a while now - the environmentalists keep requiring more studies until the money is gone, and "poof!" - the new dam or nuke plant is gone forever.

              3. 59
                frumpletonposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                I'm paying $149 a month just on the interest on my student loans.  Couldn't make any payments for a long time, due to no money and disabilities.  The payments don't go toward the principle, only on the interest.  The loan will never get paid that way.  Oh, well nothing I can do about it.  I think education in the United States should be free for everyone.

          2. My Esoteric profile image88
            My Esotericposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            I ABSOLUTELY agree!

        3. ahorseback profile image52
          ahorsebackposted 2 months ago

          I am truly amazed at the ultra-left in America , in my opinion , It's just as if they never advanced beyond sixth grade history , eighth grade social studies and sophomore problems of democracy .     Debating  politics with these  liberals is like shooting fish in a barrel , I just don't have the heart to enlighten them to the truth!

          1. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            Lol, says the guy whose candidate's idea of a policy position is "only I can fix it! " and "the cyber, it will be tremendous! Beautiful!"

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

              I think whoever can tolerate each of the candidates will think theirs won.

              I don't think Hillary should be taking grief for being scripted and prepared. It's what professionals do. She has a lot more experience in the public eye (both good and bad) and I thought she did well, especially as she was sick the week before.

              I think Trump could make a difference on trade deals, economics is his forte. But as Pretty Panther points out, will he listen to anyone's advice? He doesn't work well with others, and was woefully unprepared for this debate. He acted like a three year old. He just wants the "President" title, not the work.

              Nothing really changed, I don't believe anyone changed their minds after this debate.

              I also don't believe the labels of "conservative" or "progressive" work anymore, or ever did. Most people feel differently on different issues. It's not like a menu where one just chooses Column A if a conservative, or Column B if a Progressive.

              I wrote a hub on Trump and was surprised most of the worried people who wrote me were from other countries.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                PrettyPantherposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                I agree with everything you said here. We live in a strange world where the one who is well prepared is criticized for putting in the work. I try very hard not to pigeonhole people or lump conservatives or liberals all together. It helps that I am a liberal Democrat married to a moderate Republican but I know I am not perfect and am still sometimes unconsciously guilty of stereotyping.

                Yes, people in other countries are watching closely to see what we do. I hope we don't screw it up.

            2. ahorseback profile image52
              ahorsebackposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              And your sexist , bigamist , racist , one -world orderist ,  graft and corruption queen,  anti- American  Sen. Clinton will do what , the same as the last thirty years of nothingness !

              1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                PrettyPantherposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                big_smile

                Pithy.

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

                  I am a liberal Democrat surrounded by Republican conservatives, so get to hear their side for balance. I've lived in this area for over 30 yrs. and love most of my neighbors. But many of them never had any education past High School, they are tradesmen. Trump won't treat them any better, most R's don't like Unions or family leave. And it's people like them who are a huge demographic of Trump supporters. Most of my neighbors were still in HS when I moved here.

                  Sometimes people have to agree to disagree. You and I can do that. I've read other threads and there are several people so consumed with hatred for Hillary, I can't understand it. I'm sure you know who they are! I guess some people take their anger about life and aim it at someone they don't like.

          2. IslandBites profile image86
            IslandBitesposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            Now, that is a joke, folks!
            http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/531/986/465.gif

            LOL lol

            1. PrettyPanther profile image85
              PrettyPantherposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              big_smile

        4. TheSenior profile image60
          TheSeniorposted 2 months ago

          When she told about Alicia Machado I did ck and found out that she did win the crown in 1996 and she looked good - then in 1997 she put on 42 lbs and the org was thinking of taking away her crown but she hit the gym - when u enter a contest like this u are supposed to portray the 'ideal' and not be that much overweight and if u win u have obligations that require lots of public contact - putting a few lbs is one thing 42 is something else and yes Donald was part of the org - Donald could not have gotten where he is today if he did as Hillary espouses.

          1. Alternative Prime profile image83
            Alternative Primeposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            So, calling her a "MAID" is Justified ?? REALLY?? Are U FAMILIAR with this SWINDLERs Dubious History??

            How do U know where DONALD is Today without MORE Financial Info & TAX Returns ?? How do U know he's NOT BROKE & Headed for another Bankruptcy FILING?? RIGHT Now, as REPORTED ,, he's COLLECTING  Campaign CONTRIBUTIONs to Operate his JET, if it is indeed his JET, I haven't INSPECTED the Title and I'd ASSUME nobody else here has either ~ REMEMBER that "GRAND Lie" about "SELF-FINANCING"?? sad

            The GUY LIEs Every 3 MINUTEs According to a recent STUDY so how do assess his "Financial Condition" without Inspecting Financial DOCUMENTs??

            Did U know he's INDEBTED to CHINA for at LEAST $650 MILLION & How do U feel about that Blatant "CONFLICT of Interest" ??

        5. Elmer 2016 profile image60
          Elmer 2016posted 2 months ago

          Chmm/Hillary.jpg

        6. ahorseback profile image52
          ahorsebackposted 2 months ago

          Man , If I was a young and foolish man again  , I would want what you're taking !

        7. chevyvent profile image23
          chevyventposted 2 months ago

          Bring back Ralph Nader or Ross Perot the have a real party!

          1. My Esoteric profile image88
            My Esotericposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            And re-elect George W. Bush as a result.

         
        working