jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (194 posts)

Trump supporters: Are you going to stay on a sinking ship?

  1. Credence2 profile image86
    Credence2posted 6 weeks ago

    Even when Trump may have a good idea or two, his temperament and personality negates it all.

    There is a place for conservatives ideas within the public forum and while their messages are valid and at least deserving of consideration, the messenger in woefully inadaquate to the task.

    The GOP will deserve the pasting it will receive come November 8th from not vetting its candidates more carefully.

    The populist right is advised to get a better standard bearer, next time. Regardless of what the conserves say about the media, it still hold sway over much public opinion and griping about it will not win elections for you.

    Imagine, not one endorsement from a major news paper, but again, I forgot 'Der Sturmmer' as the sole exception. Arizona, a once reliable Red State, is actually waffling on supporting the GOP in the first time in decades.

    You conservatives and GOP types need to do some serious soul searching as to how to make your ideas more attractive to the broader population, or you are doomed to repeat this performance next time, as well.

    1. Ken Burgess profile image80
      Ken Burgessposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

      For anyone who has done their research, reviewed the very efforts of Hillary in the last 30 years... then this is a no brainer... there is no one who could be worse... not for our country, not as a person... just type in "Hillary Clinton Exposed" and pick a movie or clip to watch on Youtube.

      Determine for yourself, stop listening to the propaganda. 

      I'm not defending Trump, what I am saying is there is nothing worse than Clinton... everything she says is a lie.... from Healthcare to taxes, everything will become worse... and if you vote for her, you own it.

      1. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

        Yet, Clinton is winning from every aspect used to measure such things. The GOP made a poor case of demonizing Clinton relative to the problems with its own candidate. I neither like nor trust Trump and I will take my chances with Hillary in response. I guess it just depends our own individual world views, does it not? The question is which one will prevail on November 8th.

        1. 81
          Hxprofposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

          C2, you take a horrific "chance" with either candidate, and ideology blinds us to the worst in the debacle of choice.  I agree with Ken - Clinton is an abomination; Democrats made a terrible choice in selecting her just as Republicans made a terrible choice with Donnie.  However, the "demonizing" of Clinton SHOULD have been successful, considering all the information that's available regards her poor temperament, poor judgement, corrupt nature and far left policies that mirror Obummer's.

          1. Credence2 profile image86
            Credence2posted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

            Yes, I preferred another choice but he is not available. Of course, the same people that warn us about Clinton was telling that the 'sky would fall' at the election of Obama or even Bill Clinton. When they do get 'one of theirs in', he screws the pooch, if you know what I mean?

            Why do you think that the demonizing of Clinton was not successful?

            Trump's deficits seem to resonate with the electorate far more than Clinton's.

            1. 81
              Hxprofposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

              Uh, well, let's see.  It wasn't successful mostly because the media (gosh, I hate to treat the media like a monolith, but that's pretty much what it is) didn't even look into much of what's been put out.  Take something like the Romney dog incident, and the media dives on it, without even looking into it.

              1. Credence2 profile image86
                Credence2posted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                The 'media' as an explanation sounds more like an excuse. Why does the right always blame the media when they lose? It assumes that people are puppets that cannot ferret out the truth on their own. Just like Trump, the media is only legitimate when he and consevative/rightwing candidates win?Nobody has to be capable excellent political analysis and commentary to see that Donald Trump is a toxic candidate.

                1. 81
                  Hxprofposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                  No excuse from me....I don't like Trump either.  Regardless of who wins, 'media' is media.

                  1. 59
                    Hemisphere Sambaposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                    Deleted

      2. Sychophantastic profile image83
        Sychophantasticposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

        Fine, you don't like Hillary. I can see why. However, these sources you are citing are exactly the propaganda you object to. None of those are reliable in the least. They have no standards. You may not like them or their bias, but NYT, CNN, Washington Post, most of the major new networks, they all have standards. If you are going to make your decisions by googling stuff on the internet, you are not going to get very good information. I know when I Google stuff, I find people who believe the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, and various other nonsense.

        1. 81
          Hxprofposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

          Okay.  But you cite NYT, CNN and Washington Post as having standards?  Yes, standards from hell; if they really had standards, they would attempt, at least to maintain some degree of objectivity, but they don't. They're extraordinarily biased, just as the sources that cite "propaganda" - there's no escaping it, seemingly, internet sources, newspapers and major news networks.  The media is biased, and they're not really trying to hide it.

          1. Sychophantastic profile image83
            Sychophantasticposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

            You don't know what you're talking about and are comparing journalistic standards to baseless rumors, innuendo, and conspiracies. They're not equivalent.

            1. 81
              Hxprofposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

              Provide some examples.

            2. 81
              Hxprofposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

              One man's bias is another man's propaganda....perspective.  I understand that some of what's reported on the internet is just that, propaganda, and not strictly an example of bias necessarily.  But propaganda and intentional bias (that's primarily what I'm referring to) can spring from the same desire - to mislead, misrepresent, to seek to ensure a particular outcome, etc.  I suggest that intentional bias in the media IS propaganda.

        2. Missy Smith profile image87
          Missy Smithposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

          I concur with Sychophantastic. I just had a similar discussion of validity with someone on Facebook. If you are going to bring up ways to validate, please bring up reliable sources. Unfortunately, for Donald, he, himself has validated everything for us with his careless rants at the debates and rallies, and discussions with journalists on tour buses. As for Hillary, I haven't seen one speck of evidence that doesn't back up everything she says. She is equipped with sense enough to apologize even though her emails do not even measure up to the disgrace of Trump's crooked ways. That's the truth! like it or not.

          1. Ken Burgess profile image80
            Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

            May I correct here... That is YOUR truth, like it or not.

            " I haven't seen one speck of evidence that doesn't back up everything she says."   

            That has to be the best line I have read yet, anywhere, during this long race between these two.  Thank you for that, humor can be hard to find in all this.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

              What?!?!  Are you insinuating that the FBI did not back up her assurance that she did not put classified material on her server?  Horrors!

            2. Missy Smith profile image87
              Missy Smithposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

              Alright then Ken, where is it at? All this evidence if you think my comment is so comical.  I mean really! You need to come at me better than just acting like I'm a comedian you got a big laugh from. If you think that makes me stand down on what I think and believe; well, you know better than that.  We've had debate before over this and you know I can stand my ground. The real joke is the people who think Trump is smart enough to lead our country. That is hilarious!!! Again, please do show us your valid evidence so we can be put in our place. lol... #teamnastywoman #sofunny I must thank you for giving me a laugh back.

              Thanks Sychophantastic for posting that link! smile

              1. Ken Burgess profile image80
                Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                No I really don't, no need to "come at you" at all.   All I can say is the absurdity of the statement you made  is almost as disconnected from reality as Hillary is from the truth. 
                For anyone else that hasn't already had their fill of this go to 6:15 and watch from there, where discussed are some of the crimes, just a few.
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kypl1MYuKDY
                You've come to the party late, half the country has already voted, I know I have... and I'd say 99% of the rest already made up their minds.  As for what happens, its out of our control.  It was nice to debate the issues and the candidates, but now its time to put this in the past.
                The only thing left to debate now, is just how fraudulent the Election is, the voting process, the Electoral College.
                As many Bernie supporters can attest, it really sucks believing in a Candidate only to realize that they never had any chance, and the outcome was rigged from the start.
                Or if you just want to laugh about it all, check this guy out... he's a riot:
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LczzvcMRQfY

                1. Sychophantastic profile image83
                  Sychophantasticposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                  Ken, I totally agree. The system is completely rigged. If you're a woman in this country, it's rigged against you because if you do the same job as a man, you're paid about 75% of what the man makes and that's if you're lucky enough to get the job in the first place. Trump may grab 'em by the you-know-what, but most women are pretty much used to the symbolic grabbing if they're pursuing a professional life.

                  If you're an African-American, the same thing applies. If you're just as qualified as a white person, statistics show you are much less likely to get the same job if you apply for it. And Donald Trump knows this all too well about rigging the system against black people where housing is concerned. If you're a black person, and you try to rent an apartment or building in a Trump-owned facility or elsewhere, odds are the landlord will give the apartment to a white couple long before he will ever give it to you.

                  Completely rigged!

                  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/us/po … .html?_r=0

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                    You're kidding, right?  You accuse Trump of racism in renting his apartments and as "proof" offer cases from the other family members that are 30,40, and 50 years old?  From the time when such racism was on every street corner?

                2. Missy Smith profile image87
                  Missy Smithposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                  Honestly, I regretted even coming into this conversation as soon as I posted my thoughts. Not because I feel disconnected with reality, Ken, but moreover, because you are right about something; It's pretty much over now, and it will be a waiting game from here on out. Everyone is already putting their vote in, and I feel I want to follow suit to Elvis, and just leave the building (debate). I can't even believe I commented to be honest. I told myself I was finished with this type of conversation weeks ago. I do, however, wish you were right about my disconnect to reality, but I know I am full focused on the reality of it all and it kind of sucks! I have the sense enough to see the big picture. Donald is the Devil, and Hillary is probably not a saint herself! Even so, out of the two, she is the most knowledgeable and will keep us from the apocalypse. Haha!! This is becoming a big laugh for me. It just is! Peace!

      3. Sychophantastic profile image83
        Sychophantasticposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

        Ken, I'm curious about you.

        First, kudos for using, what I assume is your real name. You're braver than I. Second, thank you for your service to our country.

        Looking at your bio, I wouldn't automatically assume you're so staunchly, what seems to me to be, right-wing. I guess I could extrapolate that you grew up rich on Cape Cod, but that seems a stretch and isn't normal for somebody who goes into the Army. And you worked for a couple of non-profits, which I'd normally associate with somebody more left wing. Anyway, how'd you come by your political leanings, if I may ask?

        1. Ken Burgess profile image80
          Ken Burgessposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

          Sycho, I appreciate that you took the time to review my profile, and kudos for trying to extrapolate why I have the views I do from that info.

          I am not Dem... I am not Rep... I am Pro-America... Pro-better-future for my family and hopefully by extension all American families... but certainly NOT at my families expense.

          It is because I have traveled throughout the country, throughout the world, and worked, directed, non-profit programs and in general seen what I have seen that I come by the views that I have.

          Mostly I tell it like I see it... often that gets shifted by people into my being 'One of them' sometimes that is "right wing" and sometimes a "liberal"...

          I am not going to turn a blind eye to what a person is, simply because they are a Dem, or a Rep, or an American for that matter.

          We are largely a product of our experiences... but we are also wired a certain way, and can't help but be who we are.

          Ever see the Avengers movies?  Civil War, Winter Soldier?  Captain America the 'hero'  ended up being the "bad guy" wanted by his government (SHIELD a covert government agency) in one and the U.N. in another, because he stuck to his beliefs, what he believed was right, and he paid the price for it.

          Captain America the self-righteous do-gooder who believes in saving the world.  Well I don't believe in saving the world, or taking on government or anything... but often I can't help but doing or saying what I believe is right.

          Corrupt is corrupt, wrong is wrong, deplorable is deplorable no matter what Party a candidate belongs to... Dem or Rep doesn't matter to me... that works the other way too, if the candidate supports the things I believe are right, and isn't a total dirtbag I will support them, no matter what party they belong to. 

          I don't like our choices... I would love to have the ability to support Condoleezza Rice, Mike Huckabee, or a dozen politicians that are articulate, well mannered reasonable human beings that have shown some ability to empathize with others. 

          The system is more corrupt than Trump has alluded to, I think we all know this to one degree or another... its just that some of us still believe that one party or the other is responsible for it... Washington (Congress, the WH, the Establishment elite) has sold out to international corporations and foreign nations, that isn't going to get better with Hillary at the wheel.  And we the people suffer for it, we the people pay the price for it, not them.

          1. Don W profile image82
            Don Wposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

            Would it be better with the CEO of a multinational corporation at the wheel, who shows no indication that he's capable of putting the needs of the country before the needs of his own business empire? People don't realize there is no legal reason Trump can't be the CEO of Trump Inc. while he's president. What happens when the needs of ordinary working people clash with the needs of Trump Inc? Does that sound und like a recipe for unbiased decision making that benefits ordinary people?

            I'm bewildered as to why people think Trump would take corporatism out of politics. He is corporatism. All it would be doing is taking away the middlemen (politicians) and letting one of the corporations run the show directly. It's the equivalent of some hens trying to stop fox-related disappearances by hiring a certain Mr. Fox to be their leader. It's just absurd.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

              It is interesting (and puzzling) to see that same question over and over - "How do we know Trump will do what is right?".  Of course we do not, but the (current) alternative is a person that has repeatedly exhibited a very strong disinclination to do it.  There seems to be no reason to take an acknowledged evil over what might turn out to be an evil, but that little bit of reasoning seems left out of the Clinton supporters.  Either that or they simply refuse to acknowledge that she is evil - the Hillary is #1 on her thoughts and actions, that she does use her political power for purely personal gain, that she does put her every whim above the needs of the nation. 

              Perhaps that's all it is, but it truly does seem an irrational choice to make, for Clinton absolutely will cause considerable damage to the country while it is doubtful that Trump can, no matter how hard he tries.  He simply does not have the political power base that Clinton uses so superbly, and he never, ever will.  His fortune will avail him no more as President (to accomplish personal goals) than it did as a businessman, while her political power will grow exponentially if elected.

              1. GA Anderson profile image88
                GA Andersonposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                Quill showed me this once... "^5" 

                I think it suits here. That was nice work.

                GA

              2. Don W profile image82
                Don Wposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                Ken suggested Trump would take corporatism out of politics. I'm curious why he thinks that. You're trying to pivot to the morality of the candidates in general. I'm happy to discuss that, but it doesn't address this specific issue.

                If Trump followers believe Trump will take Corporatism out of politics, I ask any of you to name one thing (just one) he has done that indicates that. If it's true, it shouldn't be hard.

                As I said, rather than remove corporatism, Trump is the embodiment of corporatism. You'd only be removing the middlemen (politicians) and effectively giving Trump Inc. direct access to the influence of the president's office. I'd like any Trump follower to explain how that is taking corporatism out of politics?

                And the idea that Trump would only have as much influence as any other businessman is massively naive. It would effectively be Trump Inc. dictating the legislative agenda, and directing foreign and domestic policy. Again, I'd like to know how that is removing corporatism from politics?

                (bonus points available for answering without mentioning Hillary Clinton - it seems the "yeah, but Hillary" defense is you can muster)

            2. Ken Burgess profile image80
              Ken Burgessposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

              Well Don, Wilderness said it pretty well.
              This is all I can really add, I have reviewed Clinton's long history, and the thing that sticks out that cannot be countered:

              She says whatever is politically expedient, whatever she thinks will win her votes, she has flip flopped on every major issue... from race, to trade, from war to religion... she stands for NOTHING because she is willing to sacrifice ANYTHING for her ultimate goal(s).

              The only thing that matters to her is power, relevancy and power, prestige and power.  If you are a threat to her power and position, you are an enemy, even if you are telling the truth, even if you are totally in the right, even if you are the one that was tragically wronged.

              If you are a threat to her power, her position, she will use the IRS against you, the DOJ, private investigators, secret intelligence services you don't even know exist... nothing is off the table, she has used all such avenues already, as first lady, as Secretary of State... and as President I can only imagine her ability to reach out and strike at those she considers her enemies will be limited only to what her imagination can think up.

              No one is going to do an investigation on her, no matter what she does, we already see that the media will ignore or bury any accusation that comes out.  The mainstream media is owned and controlled by only a handful of people, and they are on the side of the Establishment, the Clintons, and part of the Washington corruption that is in control of this country and its deterioration.

              She is going to be the most powerful, untouchable President we have had in this country since FDR... maybe she will surpass even that... this is the closest to a dictatorship America will have come to in living memory, and her ability to shift the Supreme Court to the extreme left... out of balance, will essentially make it a Government unopposed.... the Supreme Court will back her, the media will back her, and Congress will be nothing, President Obama has already laid the path on how to go around Congress with Presidential Executive Orders, he was slowed by the Supreme Court, that is no longer going to be an issue for Hillary.

              So yeah, I would rather have an ineffectual (at worst) Trump in the White House, over an unstoppable Dictatorship that will be able to withstand any and all resistance to its authority.   

              And what makes it most scary of all, is she is totally callous, disconnected from everyday people and their struggles... you can see this going all the way back to her earliest professional years, helping a rapist pedophile get put back on the streets, ruining the lives of anyone Bill raped or molested, swindling elderly out of their retirement/life savings on criminal real estate deals... she is willing to sacrifice any and all of us for her gain, her power, her control.

              1. Don W profile image82
                Don Wposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                Perhaps you missed the question. You said: "Washington (Congress, the WH, the Establishment elite) has sold out to international corporations and foreign nations, that isn't going to get better with Hillary at the wheel"

                I'm asking you, or any Trump follower, to explain how Trump would remove corporatism from politics, when he is the embodiment of Corporatism? Name one thing (just one) he has done that indicates he will do that.

                The idea that Trump would only have as much influence as any other businessman is naive. It would effectively be Trump Inc. dictating the legislative agenda, and directing foreign and domestic policy. Again, how is that removing corporatism from politics?

                Before anyone starts with "yeah but Clinton", please note I'm interested to know how you believe Trump will remove corporatism from politics, which has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                  This "legislative agenda" you so blithely ascribe to the President actually belongs to the legislature.  To congress.  To the House and Senate, not the President.

                  To a large group of people, then, nearly all of which hate Trump as much as you do.  Explain again, please, just how President Trump will dictate that agenda?

                  1. Don W profile image82
                    Don Wposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                    I'm still waiting for a Trump follower (any Trump follower) to explain how putting Trump in the White House will take corporatism out of politics. No one seems willing (or able) to explain how making the embodiment of corporatism the President would remove corporatism from the political sphere.

                    Of course there are checks and balances, but to imply the president has no real power or influence is ridiculous. Corporations pay millions of dollars to influence politicians with only a fraction of the influence the president has, and look at what they have achieved in the last 50 years with that limited influence.

                    Now imagine one of those corporations controlled the White House. Trump would not only be able to set the legislative agenda for an entire party, but would also strongly influence which way members of that party voted on certain legislation. In a two-party system, that's significant.

                    But how would Trump influence the Democrats? The same way corporations influence politicians now, by buying them. Through various lobbying efforts (all done legally of course through subsidiaries and obscurely structured business entities) he can easily exert influence over the Democrats too. More importantly, he has the money to. Or perhaps you think the Democrats are too principled for that to happen? That would be a very naive view.

                    So Trump, unlike other GOP presidents, has the ability to buy Democratic politicians, which we know corporations do all the time already. What about SCOTUS? Who confirms the Justices for the Supreme Court? The Senate Committee on the Judiciary. And who makes up that committee? Members of Congress . . .

                    So through a unique combination of extreme wealth (he's richer than all previous U.S. presidents combined) and political power, Donald Trump (and by extension Trump Inc. which he can legally remain CEO of) would be unique in the amount of power and influence he wields.

                    Again, can you explain how electing Trump will take corporatism out of politics?

              2. Sychophantastic profile image83
                Sychophantasticposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                Let's remember that President Obama has issued fewer executive orders than any other two-term President in the last 100+ years.

                1. Misfit Chick profile image94
                  Misfit Chickposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                  Very good point. But, if you listen to the right-wing hype - you'd think he was an evil (literally) dictator. Absolutely NOTHING would get done in DC if the Presidents didn't do that because we keep the Senate & Congress divided against that office - JUST SO that they can't accomplish anything. It was the same way when the GOP was in there - which is why Bush was one of the Presidents who used THE MOST 'executive orders'. (It was one of the things that really p*ssed us 'liberals' off - bad us!)

                  GOP are always blind to their own double-standards. Why is that?

                  Rant as much as you want about the media, but conservative media has been JUST as harmful when it comes to objectively reporting on Democratic perspectives (including Hillary's). The Obama's have done a pretty good job in office. At the very least, they should get credit for somehow NOT bringing about the apocalypse.

                  As such, I have absolutely NO REASON to believe that Hillary won't do an even BETTER job than Obama has.

                  I've said this before and I'll say it again here... The GOP are the ones who shoot themselves in the foot - you really need to stop blaming everyone else, including the media. If McCain had chosen a semi-acceptible VP nominee than Palin, he may very well have won against Obama in 2008. And now you're mad because we Independents don't like Trump for reasons that are just as concerning.

                  Pick a decent nominee, and next time you MIGHT win.
                  http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13248736.jpg

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                    How many executive orders did Bush give out that were determined to be illegal? 

                    Obama?

                    How many of those illegal orders set major American policy?

                  2. Alternative Prime profile image84
                    Alternative Primeposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                    Well said "Misfit~Chick" ~ Just a couple "OBSERVATIONs & Responses" if I may ~

                    * Anyone who UNDERSTANDs "Global ECONOMICs & Finance" as I do & "Drumpy Trump" doesn't, will Recognize the FACT that President Obama & Administration Performed a Proverbial "MIRACLE" by "Resurrecting" the Catastrophic Economic DISASTER Republican George w Bush left him ~ Therefore, President Obama will indeed be recognized as a "TOP 5" in United States HISTORY for that Accomplishment alone, not to MENTION his many others ~

                    * If I remember correctly, John McCain was LOSING his Bid for the  Presidency against Obama & his "PALIN Pick" was a "HAIL Mary" act of DESPERATION to change the trajectory ~ An act which as we know now, SEVERELY Backfired ~

                    smile BTW ~ NICE Pick of the President smile Looks like a Potential CD COVER smile

      4. kellysgirl profile image71
        kellysgirlposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

        So, a pedophile, a racist, a misogynist, and a self centered blow hard is much better for the country? How does ANYONE justify this individual's actions? If he was anyone else, he'd have been under the jail by now. And what his supporters fail to realize is that he's getting ready to screw you guys too lol. The one thing I can say about Trump, is that he is an equal opportunity hater. NOBODY likes him lol. The Aliens are really laughing at us right now lol...

    2. Kathleen Cochran profile image84
      Kathleen Cochranposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

      Well said C2.  I take no joy in seeing my candidate win this election.  The GOP didn't even put up a fight.  But just watch them fight come January.  Their goal will remain what it has been for the last 8 years: that absolutely nothing get done.  Then watch and see what sorry nominee they get to run next time.  We need a second major party in this country.  By any chance, after this experience, might they become one?

      1. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

        Yes, talk about bringing a pea shooter to a gun fight? Thishas to be embarrassing for the GOP regulars. I am a left leaning voter, but if the GOP had picked a better candidate they would have had a chance to defend itself and its issues well enough to be at least competitive. Polls leaning both right and left are talking about not merely about a loss, but a rout.

        We still have the problem of the GOP house majorities, we need to dispense with them as well. Since, there is a chance the Dems will regain the Senate, maybe President Clinton can finally get the Supreme Court vacancy filled. It was dumb for the GOP to deny Obama his initial choice for the position as it would have been much more conservative than what Clinton, as President would place in nomination.  But alas.....

        Conservatives are, by their very nature, stubborn. I would like to think 'lessons learned', but not with these guys...

        1. Sychophantastic profile image83
          Sychophantasticposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

          Marco Rubio would have won this election if Clinton was his opponent.

          1. Credence2 profile image86
            Credence2posted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

            You are probably right, a less caustic mainstream GOP offering would have certainly done better. Because of that possibility, I was afraid of Clinton's highnegatives and was more comfortable with Bernie Sanders on her left flank.

          2. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

            Not with the robotic drone of his 'message'.

            1. colorfulone profile image89
              colorfuloneposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

              Little Marco memorized talking points like Hillary Clinton. 
              They sound like they are on MK-Ultra?  wink Mind control ...
              They lack true premises.

      2. 81
        Hxprofposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

        "Their goal will remain what it has been for the last 8 years: that absolutely nothing get done".  Yeah, I don't mind that when the things that are to be done are WRONG!!  Not that Republicans want to do a lot of great things, but under Obummer, the agenda was just plain wrong in most cases.

      3. 59
        Hemisphere Sambaposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

        Deleted

        1. Ken Burgess profile image80
          Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

          Its a little bit late now... not enough people, not enough by far, have woken up to this reality.  We are going to be marching off to a major war soon.
          Russia, China, and Iran VS America, some European states and Saudi
          Or in other words... we are about to make global the Saudi Arabia vs. Iran war - AKA - The Sunni-Shiite Proxy Wars

          Why you ask, would we do that?
          Because Saudi Arabia has invested Trillions into America?
          Because Saudi Arabia has invested hundreds of millions into the Clintons?
          Because we are fighting over control of the world's largest sources of oil & gas?

        2. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

          And more prone to destruction if it attempts to do away democratic principle and the rule of law....

    3. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

      personality! Who cares about personality when what he proposes will help the ship stay the course to SOME extent as opposed to NOT AT ALL.
      Oh, I am in Liberal waters ... sailing away quickly .. heave ho ...

      1. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

        You will thank me and the majority of the electorate for keeping the egomaniac Trump away from the White House. And yes, we of the left will win this contest. The Right only has itself to blame.

        1. Live to Learn profile image81
          Live to Learnposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

          The problem is that the vast majority of Americans are not left or right. They are in the middle and being crushed by the hatred the two sides display.

          1. Credence2 profile image86
            Credence2posted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

            I don't know about that, conservatism and liberalism are distinct values and concepts and working within these forums I see very little middle ground just looking at 'regulars' who participate. A liberal on one topic has the highest probability of being a liberal on another, for example. What kinds of people make New York and California a democratic stronghold while TEXAS as a large, populous state remains GOP? Just wondering...

            Within the last 30 -40 years from where we all saw things pretty much the same and the differences between the parties was minimal, that is far from the case, today.

            1. Live to Learn profile image81
              Live to Learnposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

              I'd say that the average american is a hodge podge mix of conservative and liberal values. I lean liberal in a lot of ways, conservative in a lot of others. Most people I know are like that. The fact that the left and the right refuse to work together to compromise and do what is best for all of the people of this country is the biggest travesty I see. I know the left will whine that the republican congress stands in the way of progress but I will say that when one side is not willing to look at the ideas of the other and incorporate them into the whole there is valid reason to balk.

              1. Credence2 profile image86
                Credence2posted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                The problem is that the left and the right have divergent solutions to the nation's problems. For instance, I find it purely obstructionist (McConnell)to interfere with the President in filling the vacancy left by the death of Antonin Scalia. We also differ in our belief over how much the Obama administration has attempted compromise with the GOP, who seems to favor an all or nothing strategy as the modus operandi.

                Wilderness, for example, departs standard conservative dogma over most of the social issues, but is ironclad regarding all of the rest of it.

                Where do you consider yourself liberal? Reading your comments seems to point to a conservative bent in your overall point of view.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                  American Conservatism:  The attitude and policy that although the American citizen is willing and able to support and care for themselves, they are basically children, uneducated and ignorant in all matters of Our Lord and Basic Morality.  As the inquisition ended centuries ago, Conservative politicians must provide laws that force education in both areas and force compliance with correct morals as defined by the Lord (or at least as defined by the shamans interpreting what our Lord tells them).  In American conservatism that means the Christian god - no other gods or beliefs need apply.

                  American Liberalism:  The attitude and policy that although the American citizen understands basic morals and will behave in a moral manner (except when it comes to providing charity), they basically children and have neither the responsibility nor ability to care for themselves.  It is up to the liberal politician, therefore, to ensure that all people have not only the necessities of life but as much in the way of luxuries as can be taken from others without active revolt.  The liberal politician must provide not only physical care but protection from stupid or unknowing actions by the citizenry as they are incapable of making decisions themselves.  There must be no aspect of daily life left unregulated as the citizenry cannot decide for themselves what they should do.

                2. Live to Learn profile image81
                  Live to Learnposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                  I would assume I'd be classified a social liberal. I do think we should help our less fortunate neighbors. Although I think my idea of help would deviate from the standard liberal because I believe in a hand up, not a hand out.

                  I think we should have national health care although that isn't what I consider the Obama solution to be.

                  I suppose I am not a liberal since I do believe in less government control over the individual and I don't believe that money grows on trees. And, of course, I am not a liberal since I refuse to overlook Hillary's many crimes.

            2. 59
              Hemisphere Sambaposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

              Deleted

              1. Credence2 profile image86
                Credence2posted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                That makes sense, ok. So who should have prevailed, should the monarchy and the social strata at the time simply should have been allowed to remain?

    4. ahorseback profile image51
      ahorsebackposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

      It is impossible for Americans like you  to " soul search " away from entitlement voting isn't it ?
      You talk about personality ;   Yet you are swayed by Hilary's sociopathic , psychopathic , totally unbelievable rants and promise .    That means you and those like you don't have a clue about what you're telling others TO DO!

      Some advice , keep believing the media cool-aid  , BUT  remember that old saying "don't count your chickens yet "speech ?

      Don't count them yet ..................:-}

      1. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

        Like my dear departed auntie used to say, 'you gotta use for head for something else besides a hat rack'. Eh, horsey?

        We all have plenty of clues as to what is going on as you will discover on November 8th. That has got to stick in your craw.

        Nobody is talking about entitlement. Do you read and comprehend? She is not being put up on a pedestal, but in my opinion, Trump is worse and who are you to say otherwise?

        You and your sort will lose and continue to lose from now through eternity.....

        1. ahorseback profile image51
          ahorsebackposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

          I just love that last line , THAT shows the entire mindset of this new  liberal America !  The leftist ideology becomes actually biblical to you , it's a "War of the Worlds " fed and nourished by  cronyism ,  false flags ,  cries of "racist , homo-phobia,  gender-phobia ,  Islama-phobia ",  just about any phobia possible as long as the media feeds on it and the YOUR school kids swallow it whole. 

          "Smile for the camera" is the new left in America , Any camera that ,as  liberal as the essence of the new the media is ,  points in your ego-centric direction !

          You know it and I know it .
          http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13244469.png

          1. Credence2 profile image86
            Credence2posted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

            I don't know about your portrayal of left wing ideology, but I am certainly familiar with the rightwinger and his or her fascist ways!

            1. Sychophantastic profile image83
              Sychophantasticposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

              Aren't you afraid of blacks, gays, and Islam?

              1. Credence2 profile image86
                Credence2posted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                Not at all,

                I am more afraid of

                Authoritarian attitudes that see the democratic process as an inconvenience.

                Rampant militarism that more crosses the line as offense rather than defense. While we have a trillion dollars to build an airplane, we have no money to invest in our people and our society.

                I am afraid of the bunch that are more than willing to support corporate cronies and their excesses at the expense of the working and middle class.

                I am afraid of people that insist that we all have to have the same religion, political outlook to be considered AMERICAN.

                Contrary to consevative dogma, I define people based upon what they do, rather than linger on superficial labels, always promoting an US vs THEM attitude.

                1. Sychophantastic profile image83
                  Sychophantasticposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                  I was asking ahorseback.

              2. ahorseback profile image51
                ahorsebackposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                No , actually THAT is what you wish to PORTRAY me as ;

                What liberals will never be able to do is debate and win in political discussion  , it always comes down to a name calling , that calling out of about six terms............. , always !    What liberals also fail exclusively to see is the futility of trying to disprove their true intent in  ANY political debate .and What is that ?   The attempted disguising of entitlement voting .

                So There !

                1. Sychophantastic profile image83
                  Sychophantasticposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                  Okay, what entitlements should be obliterate? Medicaid? And let's make sure we're not providing any Medicare assistance through taxpayer dollars. What else?

      2. Sychophantastic profile image83
        Sychophantasticposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this
        1. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

          A most revealing and interesting read, particularely from the National Review. Even if we consider both candidates scoundrels, Trump's affiliation with bigotry and alliance with those groups that have been the greatest offenders, knocks him out of the running in my opinion.

        2. Sansoph profile image79
          Sansophposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

          I'm tired of trying to reason with Trump supporters. They're beyond hope. So, I wouldn't mind seeing them sink with the ship.

        3. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

          I have said it innumerable times in the past and on this forum, unless the GOP gets it's $#!^ together, Hillary will win the Presidency. Both of these horrid candidates can do nothing to change the country for the better and probably things may get worse if either win. We are wretched bunch when we are left to elect a candidate that will make the country worse but each to what degree? Congress is at the heart of the problem yet we ignorantly elect someone who even on their best day can only make things worse. Congress will do to either of these candidate elects what they did to Obama and the corporate donation train knows it. We really do deserve this as our apathetic and ignorant knowledge of our government and how it runs plays this out. We cannot see the forest for the trees.

          1. Ken Burgess profile image80
            Ken Burgessposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

            Lets review our recent past and consider.
            We elected Obama. The Democrats held House and Senate at the time.
            They chose to pass Obamacare despite 75% of the nation being opposed and lying to us about how it would work and benefit us.
            That is a sign that the majority of Americans were pretty smart, in not wanting a bill turned into law that no one could see or discuss what was in it.
            Voters voted in as many new Politicians as they could after Obamacare was passed, in 2010 and 2014 hoping that they would do something about it...
            Hundreds of new politicians were elected as much because they said they opposed Obamacare and would do away with it, as anything else.
            Yet nothing happened, all they seemed to do is get in bed with Obama and do as he asked.  Ryan especially seems more pro-Obama than most Democrat Reps and Senators... what options do voters really have when the Speaker of the House is doing more to help Obama than most Democrat politicians?
            So here we are... the people are so frustrated with how corrupt Washington is... with how they are being ignored, their futures ruined, their healthcare and taxes raised... that they trashed all the Republican Politicians in favor of Trump... and most likely will do the same thing on Nov 8th against Hillary.
            Sad thing is, it won't matter, the popular vote doesn't choose the President.

            1. rhamson profile image77
              rhamsonposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

              Good analysis! With an approval rating of around 13% to 16% it seems that many don't care for the way Congress does it's business.(1) Yet we seem to re-elect them from a low 82% to 93% rate.(2) I have to ask where the disconnect is other than ignorance or just plain apathy. Without the electorate even paying attention to what it votes on maybe it is time to make the law such that it winnows out the cancer with term limits. Maybe then people will become more involved when responsible leadership takes a few of the perks their bought representatives hand them.


              (1) http://www.gallup.com/poll/172859/congr … level.aspx

              (2) http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/reelect.php

        4. 59
          Hemisphere Sambaposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

          Deleted

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

            and the motivation to keep it. We must rise above the media.

          2. Credence2 profile image86
            Credence2posted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

            So, what is your solution, tyranny and dictatorship? The process we have while not perfect has no alternative except brute authoritarianism. I won't tolerate that and neither should you. What do you think has to be done about all that 'poor and misled rabble'?

          3. Ken Burgess profile image80
            Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

            This is true, technically the country was lost in 1913 I believe, when Woodrow Wilson decided to allow a central bank.  From there on out neither the politicians or the people really had any control of the country.
            Social issues have progressed, heck, they do everything possible to get people to focus on social issues... equality, abortion, sexual misconduct, whatever they can come up with... anything other than the real issues and especially economic issues.
            Before computers, it was a lot harder to control elections, but with 16 states now having Computer Voting Machines its no longer a problem, the days of having to worry about real election results are over.
            Hillary Clinton will be the next President, that was decided... ohhhh about two years ago I imagine, the rest has just been a show... one that has concerned them some due to Trump's surprise popularity and unconventional race, and strong support from about 40% of the population... but none the less a show.

        5. tamarawilhite profile image87
          tamarawilhiteposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

          The voting has barely started and you're telling people to give up as if the votes are already counted? Isn't that an admission the election is rigged in favor of Clinton and a reason she shouldn't be allowed to take office?

          Her corruption is another reason she shouldn't be allowed in.

          The day that Cheryl Mills told Podesta they needed to 'clean up' the email scandal,  Hillary Surrogate Terry McCauliffe met with the FBI agent who oversaw the Clinton email case & his wife and promised financial support ($500k+) if she ran for office.
          https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/com … ryl_mills/

          Then there is the proven left wing bias of the social media sites.

          WikiLeaks Makes DNC Look Bad - Banned on Facebook and Shadowbanned on Twitter
          http://investmentwatchblog.com/twitter- … ebook-now/

          That's on top of Twitter's outright purge of conservatives and libertarians and sneaky shadow-banning of others like Scott Adams when they post something positive about Trump.

          Allum Bohkari: Leftists Rig Social Media!
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktaKOqQR2gQ

          1. Credence2 profile image86
            Credence2posted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

            I expressed an opinion, I am not telling people not or how to vote. You can vote for whomever you want, but just be aware that I am going to do the same. I am just another dangerous minority voter that the GOP has been trying suppress, but I can't be suppressed easily.

            1. 59
              Hemisphere Sambaposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

              Deleted

              1. Credence2 profile image86
                Credence2posted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                Against the rightwinger, we will see who has the last laugh?

                1. 59
                  Hemisphere Sambaposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                  Deleted

                  1. Credence2 profile image86
                    Credence2posted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                    From your profile, I see a dangerously fascist oriented individual. You can call my background what you will. But your portrayal of yourself is anything but flattering

                    But like most rightwingers who run out of ideas and give up on the idea of consensue, they resort to stupid talk of violence and insurrection. Nazi Germany was defeated, and so will be the fate of the new fascists wanna bees.

              2. Live to Learn profile image81
                Live to Learnposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                This type of militant attitude is of your own making. No one is attempting to suppress anyone in America and claims of such simply foment ill will.

                Congratulations. For being so easily manipulated and used.

                1. Credence2 profile image86
                  Credence2posted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                  What are you talking about? What militant attitude? Are you sure you are addressing the right post? You ought to be talking to Hemisphere, but I hear nothing from you or others about his promotion of naked fascism within our political system.

                  This voter suppression thing is not science fiction, if you would look beyond the right wing blogs, you will see my point.

                  1. 59
                    Hemisphere Sambaposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                    Deleted

                    1. 59
                      Hemisphere Sambaposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                      Deleted

                      1. Credence2 profile image86
                        Credence2posted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                        Name calling will get you removed from the forums, so I would step lightly if I were you....

                  2. Live to Learn profile image81
                    Live to Learnposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                    I don't read right wing blogs. I don't read left wing blogs either. Voter suppression? I have seen reports of attempts at voter inflation from the left but not voter suppression.

                    It's funny how the left constantly complains about their imaginary evil right but won't open their eyes to transgressions by the left.

            2. Ken Burgess profile image80
              Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

              Unfortunately you are giving some examples that only prove that this election is over.  From how facebook and mainstream media has handled this plethora of insider information that has become public knowledge,  everything prejudiced beliefs to outright criminal activity and perhaps even Treasonous acts... perhaps... definitely in other times in our Nation's past what has been exposed by WikiLeaks would have landed the Clintons on death row for treason.
              When you think about the stink they made about Iran-Contra and prior to that commissions about the Commie scare... and here we are with evidence that the Clintons are involved in far worse, and all the media and government does now is bury it.
              That tells you exactly who is going to win this election... and the outcome was decided long ago, before one vote was cast.

        6. Sychophantastic profile image83
          Sychophantasticposted 6 weeks ago

          http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/19/politics/ … index.html

          Even Trump is going to vote for Hillary!

          1. Credence2 profile image86
            Credence2posted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

            Yeah, it's all about politics and posturing. I have to avoid having 'His Expediency' ever darken the doors at 1600 Pensylvania Ave.

        7. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 6 weeks ago

          While I know that Clinton has high negatives for a reason, the conservatives would have found a problem with Sanders or Obama as well. You don't like politicians of a liberal bent, and I do, ok, just admit it. So, how much of this Clinton is Machiavellian stuff is suppose to register? So, we have had Bush dynasties, Kennedy dynasties and Roosevelt dynasties, none of those occupants have brought the nation to the brink. So, how is it that Clinton is the great  usurper that would defy separation of powers established by our government? Just how much power is she being given credit for actually having? Trump speaks like a dictator and tyrant, while most of these accusations regarding Clinton and such come from right wing blogs. If Clinton wins in a landslide which is totally possible, it is the same people that tells us the sky is falling who always do. If Hillary Clinton is the monster that you claim that she is even when compared to Trump, I will  just have to see it for myself.

          You don't like the Obama administration nor the progressive agenda, I get that. However, I do and most probably the majority of the electorate does as well. She will earn her victory by presenting better ideas to the populace, not through vote rigging or people being spoofed by so called liberal media.

          1. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

            No, she will not win the election by presenting better ideas. She will win by dirty tactics, backroom deals and subterfuge. She will win by garnering votes from people who don't like Trump personally. She will win by lying to the American people as she always has.

            God help us all because her arrogance will keep us embroiled in wars.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image22
              Castlepalomaposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

              What Republican candidate dose not want to go to war or don't dare say it? All top Politicians must go to war rigged by the Puppeteer masters.

              Most Americans don't want to go to war, they don't have a say in the matter. Because US is no longer a democracy and is a war economy. There is very few other areas America is  number 1 in anymore. Certainly Muslims countries do not want democracy.

              New world order is already here, only the common people can change it by a revolution. War is not justified and never solves anything except makes big money for the greedy and gives us less.

              1. Live to Learn profile image81
                Live to Learnposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                I think the last hundred years of our history show Republicans mostly walking softly and carrying a big stick. The big wars had democrats in office when we were pulled into them. Hillary,.by statements she has made, is a much more dangerous candidate to the quest for peace than most democrats are willing to explore.

                1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                  Castlepalomaposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                  I only have faith in the people, never would climb in to bed with federal politicians. Don't trust them at all, not at all. It would be a relationship based on fear, not love.

                2. Ken Burgess profile image80
                  Ken Burgessposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                  Yup, I suspect what is to follow will be a succession of events:
                  1- Hillary as President
                  2- One way or another she replaces two Supreme Court Judges in under 24 months time.
                  3- Congress is made irrelevant due to the Supreme Court's balance being shifted in her favor.
                  4- Executive Orders combined with the continuation/follow-through of TPP, TTiP and U.N.  agreements being enforced and brought into effect even if Congress tries to block them (as they have done, and as the Supreme court has done to Obama).
                  5- By the time re-election time has come around, there will be no real opposition party, there will be no real elections... we will have them... but the outcome will already be determined, just like the Dem Party primaries, there is no real alternate choice, just the illusion that people have one.
                  6- After her re-election... the 2nd Amendment will be amended, but in effect done away with, the IRS, DOJ, NSA, etc. will be used against 'terrorists' those terrorists will not be Islamic Jihadists or other threats... they will be what we have considered for generations common, normal Americans... the ones that ride around with bumper sticker saying 'you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands'.  It will be a slow, progressive, change to our nation, that occurs over years... nothing to worry about so long as you don't mind having less... less liberty, less income, and less justice and protection from an overbearing government.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                    A not unreasonable forecast.  We can certainly look for a far more authoritarian government with subsequent loss of freedom and income under a Clinton regime.  Obama grew the process; she will continue it in spades.

                  2. Credence2 profile image86
                    Credence2posted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                    Of course, she will have the opportunity to replace Supreme Court justices, what is sinister about that. They will either die or resign, isn't that the way it has always been done? But I will welcome her selections over that of a sitting conservative GOP President.

                    A leap of fantasy, how is Congress made irrelevent by the Supreme Court? Except for the view of the Alt-right, I see them as performing their functions as intended.

                    The authority of Congress will not, all of  the sudden, be nullified by Clinton. The issuance of Executive Orders is not some sort of novel concept. When so many Presidents have used it, why make her a demon for doing so?

                    If there is no opposition party, the GOP only has itself to blame. The conservatives still have a voice in the public forum. You fail to make your views relevant in a electoral system where majority rules, don't blame Clinton and the Democrats.

                    It takes 3/4 of the states to ratify a change to the Constitution of this magnitude, it is ridiculous to consider that such a majority will annul the 2nd Amendment as much as the idea that conservatives could Constitutionally ban abortion.

                    You paint an unrealistic and dismal picture. In this case, I am from Missouri and I say prove it beyond your mere conjecture.

                    1. wilderness profile image97
                      wildernessposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                      "she will have the opportunity to replace Supreme Court justices, what is sinister about that."

                      What is sinister is that with nearly every passing year the SCOTUS has drifted a little farther from interpreting the constitution as the writers intended into interpreting as the current party platform wants it.  The more "out of balance" (what a sad term to have to apply to SCOTUS) the worse the problem.

                      "it is ridiculous to consider that such a majority will annul the 2nd Amendment"

                      Except that it will be done in stages, with each stage taking just a little more - "the constitution doesn't guarantee you can have a nuclear bomb".  Or automatic rifles.  Or make believe assault rifles.  Or handguns.  Or semi-automatic rifles.  Or rifling in the barrel.  Or bullets with powder attached to them.  Or weapons using gunpowder.  etc. etc.  Eventually it will get to the point where enough people are so afraid of guns that the amendment WILL be nullified - we've already come a long ways towards that ultimate goal.  Just the step denying weapons to anyone on a secret government list without recourse and without ever facing our accuser is an enormous one.  Can you say "J Edgar" about guns instead of communists?

                      1. Credence2 profile image86
                        Credence2posted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                        Wilderness you say...

                        'What is sinister is that with nearly every passing year the SCOTUS has drifted a little farther from interpreting the constitution as the writers intended into interpreting as the current party platform wants it.  The more "out of balance" (what a sad term to have to apply to SCOTUS) the worse the problem.'

                        Does that out of balance include the type of justices that Trump would appoint? Every President has that constitional obligation. To the winner goes the spoils. Did you say the same when the Bushes and REagan appointed judges?Your position is that of a typical conservative, it is partisan and ideological. Your comment of 'out of balance' is just your point of view.

                        The second paragraph is mere conjecture on your part. Clinton could not make such a change, solely even if she wanted to. Most of the statehouses are headed by Republicans. Do you think that they would sit down for such a thing?

                        1. wilderness profile image97
                          wildernessposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                          "To the winner goes the spoils."

                          Above all other past Presidents I believe we can count on Clinton to appoint judges that will ignore any requirement for constitutionality to promote liberal agendas.  Trump might (although I actually rather doubt it), but Clinton absolutely will, for she doesn't give a flip about law.

                          The only reason we currently have private guns is because states (and the NRA) have stopped it.  But I actually put very little in the political arena past Clinton.  She will be a dictator, not a President.  Ken Burgess stated it well.

                          Do notice that we have already seen much of those violations of the amendment already put into affect.  What can possibly make you think Clinton won't fight for more?  She has repeatedly stated that "common sense" regulations are necessary...without ever bothering to define just what "common sense" IS.  Leaving it wide open for whatever she wants, in other words.

                3. Credence2 profile image86
                  Credence2posted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                  Were World Wars One or Two avoidable if a GOP president were at the helm? I doubt it.

                  World War I was more questionable though, would a GOP President have cause to declare war on Germany because of their policy of unrestricted submarine warfare and the revelation of the 'Zimmerman Note' by 1917?

                  Korea were the result of the Cold War politics which both parties and the nation were prosecuting.

                  The Vietnam conflict reared its head under Kennedy to be ratcheted up Johnson and NIXON.

                  I say that it
                  was more the cause of the timing of history than any tendency toward bellicosity by former Democratic Presidents.

                  1. Live to Learn profile image81
                    Live to Learnposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                    I agree that we would have been drug into the two big wars no matter who was at the helm. We really had (in my opinion) a moral obligation to become involved.

                    And, I suppose the Korean war was inevitable considering the world climate at the time.

                    I find it funny that you capitalize the name Nixon, as if somehow he bore more responsibility for that war than the other two.

                    I suppose you can blame history, as opposed to the decisions made by democratic presidents. I wonder if you would be so prone to transfer blame had they been Republicans. I seriously doubt it.

                    1. Sychophantastic profile image83
                      Sychophantasticposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                      Vietnam actually developed under Eisenhower and escalated from there.

                      http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 … p-movement

                      1. Credence2 profile image86
                        Credence2posted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                        This is correct if we want to return to the mid 50's and the French experience. However, I read that President Kennedy sent AMERICAN troops officially to Vietnam in December, 1961.

                        1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                          Castlepalomaposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                          When you need to burn a village to save a village, it is no longer a defense military. It is a Offensive attack around the world with a offensive budget go match.

                    2. Credence2 profile image86
                      Credence2posted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                      I capitalized NIXON to emphasize thata Republican President had a major role to play in the Vietnam conflict.




                      'I suppose you can blame history, as opposed to the decisions made by democratic presidents. I wonder if you would be so prone to transfer blame had they been Republicans. I seriously doubt it.'

                      History is history and You are seriously incorrect....

                4. colorfulone profile image89
                  colorfuloneposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                  I can't disagree with you.  Although, the establishment is heavily invested in the military-industrial complex, that Eisenhower warned us about at the end of his presidency.

                  http://www.history.com/this-day-in-hist … al-complex

                  1. Ken Burgess profile image80
                    Ken Burgessposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                    But that was a long time ago... those companies are now international, Boeing is moving its major building operations to China, as are others... as all the trade protections are stripped from America by our politicians, all major companies and corporations will move their factories and plants elsewhere, including the "military-industrial complex".
                    If China is not already the world's Super Power, it will be shortly... by the end of Clinton's Administration I'd wager.

                    1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                      Castlepalomaposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                      I agree, the shift of power to China is unavoidable. The new world order will not go down without a hell of  a fight. Greater than we have ever experienced in human history.
                      It  will effect everyone on the planet. I'm prepare for the worst.

                    2. colorfulone profile image89
                      colorfuloneposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                      You are correct, Ken.   When Trump said that about Boeing the media said that was “bizarre".   I read that China built its own military-industrial complex.  While America is regressing, China, Iran and Russia have been progressing with our homegrown traitors' help.

                      Anytime the media or establishment says what Trump says is “bizarre", I know there is a cover story, and a story under that, and story under that...  Its like when Hillary lost it over Benghazi and the four Americans that died, she yelled, "What difference at this point does it make".  Red flag!

                      “Hillary Clinton was a great friend of Saul Alinsky, she was on a first name basis with him when she was a student. Saul Alinsky wrote the book ‘Rules for Radicals’ If you haven’t read it then I recommend you read it and see the kind of things that are recommended to fundamentally change this nation from the great success that we have to a socialist country. The dedication page of that book says “dedicated to Lucifer the original radical who gained his Kingdom.” I don’t want anything to do with anything like that!”

                      -Dr Ben Carson (speech when endorsing Donald Trump on 3-11-16)

                    3. Credence2 profile image86
                      Credence2posted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                      So, what do we do about this situation. Did we really think that we could remain on top, forever? As China develops its economy with over abillion people did you think that they would remain under in the Rick-shaw standard? We cannot dominate these people militarily, the keys now seem to be in education of our people in the new disciplines of the future if we ever hope to maintain our standard of living. Companies are leaving based on Capitalism and the pursuit of profit and opportunity. The conservatives say that high corporate taxes keeps them away. I say with lower labor costs and fewer regulations outside the US, it won't really matter much about the taxes they pay in comparison to those savings.

                      So who can answer? What do we do besides blame the Democrats for a systemic problem that is byproduct of international trade and relations, today.

                      1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                        Castlepalomaposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                        The US military budget is ten times greater than the education budget.  Cut Military budget in half, give it to Education and poverty in America. That puts America in order to stay on top.

                        If Elitist don't like it, FUC_EM. !!!

                        I'm sure the Public fears for the safety more so from NATO. Military intelligence Wins again.

                        1. Credence2 profile image86
                          Credence2posted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                          I hear you, despite the magnitude of the problem, the powers that be will never make that concession.

                      2. Ken Burgess profile image80
                        Ken Burgessposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                        Blame Dems... blame Reps... that is a sign that one doesn't really see the big picture.  When you realize that the system, the establishment, the politicians the lawmakers are now subservient to International Corporations, banks and Foreign Nations... not we the people... then you will at least have an idea of what the problem really is.

                        Anyways this was what Ike alluded to when he left office, only on a much grander and more powerful scale.

                        What can WE do about It? 
                        Nothing... other than be aware of it, and not waste your time blaming Dems or Reps or playing that game.
                        Be aware of it, and do your best to position yourself and your family to be able live as best as you can if the bottom falls out of our economy... or if we just continue to decline as a nation.
                        That said, voting in the most corrupt and willing to sell America out politician to come along in two hundred and forty years isn't going to help things.

                        1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                          Castlepalomaposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                          Yes, the neverending hierarchy fairlytales are never getting better for all.

                          In northern Europe they have found smaller Governments and smaller self sufficient companies are a greater solution for all.

                        2. colorfulone profile image89
                          colorfuloneposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

                          I believe you would be interested in reading the white papers of the "World Bank-IMF (Stiglitz)"...some people have broken that down well.
                          https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bit … sequence=1

                          Its a scientific destabilization program to destroy countries.
                          This is beyond a Jim Jones cult.
                          The IMF World Bank is an assault on humanity.

                          Trump knows this stuff and has to sink it.  Its the sinking ship!

            2. Alternative Prime profile image84
              Alternative Primeposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

              Hillary will ABSOLUTELY Win with IDEAs & that's just ONE Reason WHY REAL Polls Forecast Trump's HATE Filled Self Aggrandizing INSANE "PSEUDO-Campaign" is HEADED for a Humiliating LANDSLIDE Defeat ~

              * Hillary will "RAISE Wages" for ALL HARD Working Americans - "Delusional Donald" has PROMISED to "LOWER Wages" as he's already done in a Vegas Property which bears his "Tarnished Name" ~

              * Hillary will ENCOURAGE Builders to Use U.S. Steel for Projects, not USE Steel from COMMUNIST China as Trump has already done ~

              * Hillary will PROTECT a Woman's RIGHT to "CONTROL her Body" while "TRUMP the ABUSER" would Unlawfully INVADE this Space ~

              The DIFFERENCEs are Endless ~

              BTW ~ It's not a "SINKING Ship" it's a "S*U*N*K*E*N Ship" ~ sad ~ Even many within his "CORE Fan BASE" are FLEEING Before CON-Man Donald goes "DOWN in Flames"  then turns his Sinister Intent toward "MONETIZING" them which was his ORIGINAL Idea ~ sad

              According to REPORTs, Traffic is DOWN at his Properties 17% to 27% so he's gonna' need INCOME Soon ~ sad ~ Did he actually EXPECT Traffic to INCREASE during his HATE Filled Racist Woman HATING Pseudo-Campaign ????

              http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/14/technol … s-traffic/

          2. Seiyefa Okirika profile image41
            Seiyefa Okirikaposted 6 weeks ago

            I rather stay in a sinking ship. Than to live in a world full of lies.

            1. PhoenixV profile image78
              PhoenixVposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

              Women and children first.

              https://youtu.be/g73kOrhAai4

            2. Sychophantastic profile image83
              Sychophantasticposted 6 weeks ago in reply to this

              Well, Trump hasn't said much that is true, so that's an odd statement.

          3. ahorseback profile image51
            ahorsebackposted 6 weeks ago

            It seems to me people that hate trump so much  aren't concerned with sinking ships  as much as the  history of the Whole Sunken  Clinton flotilla ! Win or lose the Clintons are a typhoon waiting to happen !

          4. gmwilliams profile image85
            gmwilliamsposted 5 weeks ago

            Trump supporters KNOW that Trump is behind & sinking.  However, they will insist that Trump will win November 2016 against all inductive & deductive logic.   The polls show how behind Trump is in comparison to Clinton.   They refuse to see this, instead remarking that the polls are rigged, even sabotaged by the "Liberal media complex".  This is going beyond the fantastical if you ask me. 

            In my assessment, Trump supporters are analogous to Hitler in 1945.  He knew that the war was lost for a VERY LONG TIME but he insisted that somehow the war will be won.  Evidence showed that since late 1943, the Allies were gaining group which was accelerated in 1944 with the gradual liberation of European countries in the West & East.  Oh no....instead of accepting this, Hitler become more hell-bent. He decided to go all out e.g. the Battle of the Bulge, he wanted somehow to regain the west.  This battle resulted in many American deaths but nevertheless Americans won & pushed German soldiers into Germany.  Well, we all know that the Russians were pounding Germany from the East.  Hitler never accepted responsibility yet continuing to blame & execute others until his suicide.  Trump supporters have a delusional mindset "that somehow, everything will be all right in the end".

            1. IslandBites profile image85
              IslandBitesposted 5 weeks ago

              “Look, politicians are all talk, they’re no action. They don’t do the job, they don’t know what they’re doing. I know them better than anybody, Howie. I deal with all of them. And, you know, I make contributions to many of them. They’re friends, they’re this. It’s smart. It’s called being an intelligent person and a great business person. But the truth is that, you have to be able to get along with—if you’re gonna be a business person, even in the United States, you wanna get along with all sides because you’re gonna need things from everybody. And you wanna get along with all sides, it’s very important.” - Trump

              “When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.” - Trump

              “I’ve given to everybody. Because that was my job. I gotta give to them. Because when I want something, I get it. When I call, they kiss my ass. It's true. They kiss my ass. It's true.” - Trump

              “Aren’t you part of the problem?” When it comes to lobbying and influence-peddling. He responded, Absolutely. 100%. Absolutely, I was on the other side. They will do whatever I want. Up until you decide to run.”

              https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won … ax-breaks/

              http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/d … ist-230191

              1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                Castlepalomaposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                I have personally work along with politicians and met many through my arts and entertainment business.

                Bottom line half the time they are lying and the other half they don't know what they are doing.
                With exception of lower forms of Government

                There is always room for more on the ship of fools. Until they hit another iceberg.

                Like your view's I.- bites

            2. Rehan Redoy profile image61
              Rehan Redoyposted 5 weeks ago

              yes i hope so. who knows what happen in future.

            3. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 5 weeks ago

              Trump supporters: Are you going to stay on a floating ship?
              YES.
              Its our only hope.

              1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                Castlepalomaposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                Trump is your only hope.

                I would rather hire a fox to guard the hen house.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                  Its the only option we have. He cares about the country. Watch his entire speeches on You Tube. See him in a clear light. Don't watch the clips which take him out of perspective. Which make him look like a bad guy. He isn't.

                2. 59
                  Hemisphere Sambaposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                  Deleted

                  1. Don W profile image82
                    Don Wposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                    Trump is the special interest. He represents the corporatism that has been undermining the democratic process for the last 80 years. But if you think he can't be owned, think again. Compared to the Russian Oligarchs, Trump's wealth is pocket change, and Putin has a tight leash on all of them. If anyone can buy Trump, Putin can. Trump's submissive posturing to Putin, like the way he gushes everytime Putin's name is mentioned, is a big mistake. Putin is not the type who respects sycophants, and it indicates that Trump would be the submissive partner in any relationship between them. Trump would no doubt see himself as Putin's equal. Putin would see Trump as a useful idiot, which I suspect he already does (and let's face it, who wouldn't?)

            4. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 5 weeks ago

              we mostly following what ever the mass Corporatism is telling us what we must do.

              define: "mass corporatism"

            5. Credence2 profile image86
              Credence2posted 5 weeks ago

              In all fairness to Trump, I have to give him credit for a couple of good ideas. I wondered how he was going to get corporate America from exporting so many jobs?

              1.
              This quote from Michael Moore from Salon:

              “Donald Trump came to the Detroit Economic Club and stood there in front of Ford Motor executives and said, ‘If you close these factories as you’re planning to do in Detroit and build them in Mexico, I’m going to put a 35 percent tariff on those cars when you send them back and nobody’s going to buy them,'” Moore noted. “It was an amazing thing to see. No politician, Republican or Democrat, had ever said anything like that to these executives, and it was music to the ears of people in Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

              2. He has said that it was high time that our allies chipped in a little more regarding the cost of defense and global security. We can reduce our outrageous military budget and ask them to increase theirs a bit more.

              Those are great ideas, why does he, otherwise, have to be so damned abrasive and troublesome?

              1. Sychophantastic profile image83
                Sychophantasticposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                Agreed.

                If he could have focused his campaign on issues instead of being a dick, he would win. His views on trade are anti-Republican. Strangely, as Democrats have been moving to more of a free trade platform, Republicans have been moving back to protectionism.

                He's also not entirely off on illegal immigration. I think there's basic agreement that we can't just let immigrants flood into the country illegally and that spending our tax dollars on illegal immigrants doesn't make a lot of sense. However, the way to do that isn't to attack the people themselves, but the businesses that utilize them while recognizing that paying a living wage in order to attract non-immigrants into those jobs means we will all be paying more for certain things produced from certain jobs traditionally worked with immigrant labor.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                  "If he could have focused his campaign on issues instead of being a dick, he would win."

                  You mean if he had acted as a normal politician he would have won.  Right?

                  But I would have to disagree with that statement, for Trump's being himself instead of politics as usual is why he's where he is.

                  1. Alternative Prime profile image84
                    Alternative Primeposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                    Here's a "PARTIAL LIST" of WHY "Delusional Donald" will LOOSE in a LANDSLIDE ~ In REALITY, if U INVESTIGATE his HISTORY you'll REALIZE he "RIGGED" the ELECTION AGAINST Himself ~

                    * His INTENT to "CUT Wages" for ALL Americans
                    * His Misogynistic Behavior Toward WOMEN
                    * His Impending LAW Suits for "SEXUAL Assault" Against at LEAST 11 Women & COUNTING
                    * His RACIST Beliefs
                    * He LOST 1 BILLION Dollars in 1990's
                    * He BANKRUPTED Casinos in New Jersey ~ VERY Difficult ACCOMPLISHMENT unless the CEO is Completely INEPT
                    * 5,000 AMERICANs are SUING Donald for "ELDER Abuse" & Racketeering" ~ Trump UNIVERSITY ~ Google it
                    * His COMMUNIST Connections & Business ASSOCIATEs like "Felix Sater"
                    * His ADMIRATION for Vladimir Putin & other MURDERING Dictators
                    * "Undervaluing & UNDER-Paying" Employees
                    * Manufacturing his Merchandise in foreign lands like CHINA etc etc

                    The LIST is NEARLY Endless ~

                    1. Misfit Chick profile image94
                      Misfit Chickposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                      Good job. We could even simplify things a bit more. Most people are the maddest at Clinton/Trump for the following reasons:

                      1) Clinton ILLEGALLY had her own email server created in an attempt to improve the performance of her team; AND she has potentially LIED about absolutely everything surrounding that treason.

                      2) Trump has outright insulted & offended people in racial & misogynistic ways - since the beginning of his campaign (and if we're being honest, before) - without any sense of civility, sensitivity or tact: things needed to be President of the US for what should be obvious reasons.

                      Trump has done nothing but threaten people who don't think like he does; and fan the flames of division.

                      Hmmm... Let me think...

                      1. Alternative Prime profile image84
                        Alternative Primeposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                        That's FINE Misfit Chick, but we CANNOT Discount nor IGNORE the Nearly "INNUMERABLE UNDERLYING" Reasons WHY Donald will LOOSE in a LANDSLIDE on NOVEMBER 8 ~ That's Just a "PARTIAL LIST" in my Previous COMMENT ~

                        Trump's PENDING Trial for "PEDOPHILIA" on December 16, 2016 is a "DISQUALIFIER" in and of itself ~ There's really no COMPARISON Between Hillary & Donald ~

                        1. Misfit Chick profile image94
                          Misfit Chickposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                          Well, as I've said before... Sexual misconduct isn't really a deal-breaker for me. As a woman who was a victim of pedophelia as a child; and of course inappropriate behavior from men throughout my life in varying ways, since: sexual dysfunction obviously has no bearing on how capable you are to interact in this life on a sentient (or even brilliant) level. Plus, nothing been proven yet - can't use that lawsuit against Trump in this election.

                          It seems to me that just about every man in politics (or is it most - never all - men in general) probably have PILES of offenses that could be listed if we could get to every sin and unveil it. There IS something to be said about the attitude of people and Trump's defense of, "Its just locker room talk." Society has been forgiving talk - and worse, ACTIONS - behind 'locker room behavior' long past the time when MEN should know better. Teach your kids to be men, not boys in that room, Coaches - and we would have fewer jerks spouting off 'acceptibly' like Trump does.

                          Everyone is guilty of something; and it is ALL BAD. But, how do you treat people? What are your reasons behind saying what you say? What are the intentions of your heart? Why do you think you would be the best person for that office? Those are the important questions - and yeah, Trump loses from every angle.

                2. Sychophantastic profile image83
                  Sychophantasticposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                  I guess you're probably right. He had to get the Republican nomination first, so apparently all the hatred, misogyny and racism secured that vote. However, as many have said, a general election requires a different tack. He just needed to focus on the issues, because there are some big ones, and hammer Clinton on them.

                  Still, there's hope for him. This latest revelation from the FBI could help Trump.

                  1. Sychophantastic profile image83
                    Sychophantasticposted 5 weeks ago in reply to this

                    It's also worth noting that, as a Trump supporter, his vow to contribute $100 million to his campaign and filings that show he only contributed $31k in October have got to make you pretty mad. After all, money is important for ads and rallies and such. Perhaps that additional money would make a difference?

                    He spent a fair amount to get the nomination, but hasn't spent much since then.

             
            working