What is the bridge too far for conservatism?

[Fingon]

I'm admittedly far from a conservative, though I did grow up as one. The question I have for my conservative friends is what is the bridge too far in supporting someone like Donald Trump? Today, he joked about people shooting Hillary Clinton. Yes it was a joke, but just another in a long line of statements and off the cuff crass-ness that was previously unimaginable in a Presidential candidate in the modern era. (Or as Trump supporters would say, another blatant example of the unfair media piling on by reporting the words that Trump says in public).

There are so many sad layers to this, not the least of which is that the Republican party will cease to be taken seriously if they don't dump this clown and the incoherent populist ideology he espouses. And if the GOP ceases to be taken seriously as a political force, that's bad for democracy. Even the most unabashed liberal has to understand that one-party rule or one-sided dominance of any ideology will fail to serve the needs of the people over time. America needs two credible parties for government to function properly, and that includes a credible conservative party. And at this point, by almost any standard of measure, the GOP is losing that credibilty. The GOP is selling its soul to know-nothings, and in the process, is proving itself utterly un-credible. To borrow from George Will, the party is demonstrating that it's not qualified to nominate Presidential candidates because they have judged Donald Trump to be a qualified Presidential candidate.

At what point does the Republican party understand that their interests are far better served by punting, destroying Hillary in 2020, and cleansing this scourge of infantile populist nativism from its party? How far does this have to go on? That's without even getting into the question of down-ballot fallout in 2016. Do Republicans really think conservatives, especially moderate fiscal conservatives are just going to forgive and forget this debacle of a campaign?

 

[TarHeelEer]

what is the bridge too far in supporting someone like Donald Trump?

That list is not as wide but much deeper for Hillary.
And... If Trump brought a knife to a fight, Obama would bring a gun.

 

[rog1187]

I'm admittedly far from a conservative, though I did grow up as one. The question I have for my conservative friends is what is the bridge too far in supporting someone like Donald Trump? Today, he joked about people shooting Hillary Clinton. Yes it was a joke, but just another in a long line of statements and off the cuff crass-ness that was previously unimaginable in a Presidential candidate in the modern era. (Or as Trump supporters would say, another blatant example of the unfair media piling on by reporting the words that Trump says in public).

There are so many sad layers to this, not the least of which is that the Republican party will cease to be taken seriously if they don't dump this clown and the incoherent populist ideology he espouses. And if the GOP ceases to be taken seriously as a political force, that's bad for democracy. Even the most unabashed liberal has to understand that one-party rule or one-sided dominance of any ideology will fail to serve the needs of the people over time. America needs two credible parties for government to function properly, and that includes a credible conservative party. And at this point, by almost any standard of measure, the GOP is losing that credibilty. The GOP is selling its soul to know-nothings, and in the process, is proving itself utterly un-credible. To borrow from George Will, the party is demonstrating that it's not qualified to nominate Presidential candidates because they have judged Donald Trump to be a qualified Presidential candidate.

At what point does the Republican party understand that their interests are far better served by punting, destroying Hillary in 2020, and cleansing this scourge of infantile populist nativism from its party? How far does this have to go on? That's without even getting into the question of down-ballot fallout in 2016. Do Republicans really think conservatives, especially moderate fiscal conservatives are just going to forgive and forget this debacle of a campaign?

The GOP isn't qualified to nominate a Presidential candidate...Hillary had the system rigged in favor by the DNC and she still was taken to the end by Sanders...and what does it say about the DNC and it's supporters that they have nominated a candidate that is careless, reckless, and lies about US security?

 

[mneilmont]

I'm admittedly far from a conservative, though I did grow up as one. The question I have for my conservative friends is what is the bridge too far in supporting someone like Donald Trump? Today, he joked about people shooting Hillary Clinton. Yes it was a joke, but just another in a long line of statements and off the cuff crass-ness that was previously unimaginable in a Presidential candidate in the modern era. (Or as Trump supporters would say, another blatant example of the unfair media piling on by reporting the words that Trump says in public).

There are so many sad layers to this, not the least of which is that the Republican party will cease to be taken seriously if they don't dump this clown and the incoherent populist ideology he espouses. And if the GOP ceases to be taken seriously as a political force, that's bad for democracy. Even the most unabashed liberal has to understand that one-party rule or one-sided dominance of any ideology will fail to serve the needs of the people over time. America needs two credible parties for government to function properly, and that includes a credible conservative party. And at this point, by almost any standard of measure, the GOP is losing that credibilty. The GOP is selling its soul to know-nothings, and in the process, is proving itself utterly un-credible. To borrow from George Will, the party is demonstrating that it's not qualified to nominate Presidential candidates because they have judged Donald Trump to be a qualified Presidential candidate.

At what point does the Republican party understand that their interests are far better served by punting, destroying Hillary in 2020, and cleansing this scourge of infantile populist nativism from its party? How far does this have to go on? That's without even getting into the question of down-ballot fallout in 2016. Do Republicans really think conservatives, especially moderate fiscal conservatives are just going to forgive and forget this debacle of a campaign?

Maybe I did not have full devotion to what Trump was saying. but you and I interpreted it totally differently.

I heard him say that the 2nd Amendment would not survive if Hillary were to get elected and appoint two liberal SC Judges to give liberals the majority to vote to amend the 2nd. That made sense to me.

Later, I heard MSNBC saying the current 2nd gives right to arms and someone could shoot Hillary. How in the hell could it be so far apart in interpretation? I don't know how the two new liberal judges applied to this philosophy.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

I'm admittedly far from a conservative, though I did grow up as one. The question I have for my conservative friends is what is the bridge too far in supporting someone like Donald Trump? Today, he joked about people shooting Hillary Clinton. Yes it was a joke, but just another in a long line of statements and off the cuff crass-ness that was previously unimaginable in a Presidential candidate in the modern era. (Or as Trump supporters would say, another blatant example of the unfair media piling on by reporting the words that Trump says in public).

There are so many sad layers to this, not the least of which is that the Republican party will cease to be taken seriously if they don't dump this clown and the incoherent populist ideology he espouses. And if the GOP ceases to be taken seriously as a political force, that's bad for democracy. Even the most unabashed liberal has to understand that one-party rule or one-sided dominance of any ideology will fail to serve the needs of the people over time. America needs two credible parties for government to function properly, and that includes a credible conservative party. And at this point, by almost any standard of measure, the GOP is losing that credibilty. The GOP is selling its soul to know-nothings, and in the process, is proving itself utterly un-credible. To borrow from George Will, the party is demonstrating that it's not qualified to nominate Presidential candidates because they have judged Donald Trump to be a qualified Presidential candidate.

At what point does the Republican party understand that their interests are far better served by punting, destroying Hillary in 2020, and cleansing this scourge of infantile populist nativism from its party? How far does this have to go on? That's without even getting into the question of down-ballot fallout in 2016. Do Republicans really think conservatives, especially moderate fiscal conservatives are just going to forgive and forget this debacle of a campaign?

If my only choice was Trump or Hillary then the answer is easy. There isn't a bridge too far. Since I have other options in Gary Johnson, his Remagen moment for me was talking **** about McCain. With that said, if Johnson wasn't in it, I'd vote for him. I'd vote for Bru or RPJ before I'd vote for Hillary.

Which brings up a good point, what's your bridge too far for her?

 

[Fingon]

That anyone with a functioning brain could even try to argue an equivalence at this point is completely laughable. I'm speechless.

As to your question, there are plenty of things I dislike about Hillary and I would have seriously considered voting for the right Republican this cycle. Kasich, Rubio, or Jeb. Hard to say for sure, but she's definitely un-trustworthy. But in comparison to Trump? On her worst day she's not even close to his level of delusion and derangement.

 

[BigLickMountee]

The question I have for my conservative friends is what is the bridge too far in supporting someone like Donald Trump?

If I was a Trump supporter, and with they way events with Trump have evolved to this point during his campaign, Hillary having demonstrated a life and campaign of moral integrity would sway me. She is unequivocally dishonest and corrupt. If she was better than him, I'd vote for her.

 

[Fingon]

If I was a Trump supporter, and with they way events with Trump have evolved to this point during his campaign, Hillary having demonstrated a life and campaign of moral integrity would sway me. She is unequivocally dishonest and corrupt. If she was better than him, I'd vote for her.

You really think there's a comparison?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/o...EV-0804&WT.mc_ev=click&ad-keywords=AUDDEVGate

 

[rog1187]

1. "Extremely careless"
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."
2. "Should have known"
"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."
3. "Especially concerning"
"None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government -- or even with a commercial email service like Gmail."
4. "Still obligated to protect it"
"Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked 'classified' in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."
5. "Generally lacking"
While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified email systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information that is found elsewhere in the government.
6. "Hostile actors"
"We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent."
7. "Sophisticated adversaries"
"She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account."

And yet Hillary would look you in the face and tell you James Comey did not say those things.

 

[BigLickMountee]

You really think there's a comparison?

I am a Colonel in the army. If I did 1/10 of what she did I'd be disgraced and possibly even jailed. There is a comparison of the two based on your question. If she wasn't corrupt I'd vote for her.

 

[PriddyBoy]

I'm admittedly far from a conservative, though I did grow up as one. The question I have for my conservative friends is what is the bridge too far in supporting someone like Donald Trump? Today, he joked about people shooting Hillary Clinton. Yes it was a joke, but just another in a long line of statements and off the cuff crass-ness that was previously unimaginable in a Presidential candidate in the modern era. (Or as Trump supporters would say, another blatant example of the unfair media piling on by reporting the words that Trump says in public).

There are so many sad layers to this, not the least of which is that the Republican party will cease to be taken seriously if they don't dump this clown and the incoherent populist ideology he espouses. And if the GOP ceases to be taken seriously as a political force, that's bad for democracy. Even the most unabashed liberal has to understand that one-party rule or one-sided dominance of any ideology will fail to serve the needs of the people over time. America needs two credible parties for government to function properly, and that includes a credible conservative party. And at this point, by almost any standard of measure, the GOP is losing that credibilty. The GOP is selling its soul to know-nothings, and in the process, is proving itself utterly un-credible. To borrow from George Will, the party is demonstrating that it's not qualified to nominate Presidential candidates because they have judged Donald Trump to be a qualified Presidential candidate.

At what point does the Republican party understand that their interests are far better served by punting, destroying Hillary in 2020, and cleansing this scourge of infantile populist nativism from its party? How far does this have to go on? That's without even getting into the question of down-ballot fallout in 2016. Do Republicans really think conservatives, especially moderate fiscal conservatives are just going to forgive and forget this debacle of a campaign?

I can just hear your BS if this guy was at a Trump rally.

 

[TarHeelEer]

You really think there's a comparison?

 

[TarHeelEer]

You really think there's a comparison?

Huma, Hillary, Clinton Foundation

 

[op2]

The GOP isn't qualified to nominate a Presidential candidate...Hillary had the system rigged in favor by the DNC and she still was taken to the end by Sanders...and what does it say about the DNC and it's supporters that they have nominated a candidate that is careless, reckless, and lies about US security?

Here is what jumps out from the 2016 primaries to me. The winner of the Republican race isn't a Republican. And the close 2nd place finisher of the Democrat race isn't a Democrat.

We are so wedded to the two party system and it's so hard for 3rd parties to gain traction that any political inclinations beyond the usual ones in the two main parties are expressed through the two main parties because there are no other outlets for them.

 

[Fingon]

http://www.theonion.com/article/trump-sick-and-tired-mainstream-media-always-tryin-53375

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

You really think there's a comparison?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/o...EV-0804&WT.mc_ev=click&ad-keywords=AUDDEVGate

No, I don't think there is a comparison. She has actually done far worse than anything he has said.

I don't know when the left's standards of acceptability dropped as low as they have. For Christ's sake Clay, between Obama and Clinton, with the wire tapping of AP reporters, collusion to rig a Primary election, agencies of the Gov't being used to stifle opposition, and the outright recklessness of her recent actions and refusal to acknowledge fault? Nixon resigned for **** like this. You all are looking at Trump supporters with disdain and befuddlement, and don't even realize you're accepting far worse just because she doesn't go off on Twitter rants.

The crazy thing is I agree with you all about Trump, how can you not see it with her?

 

[Fingon]

Your comparison to Nixon is apt. The problem is, Trump is George Wallace in that analogy.

I've never tried to argue that Hillary isn't crooked and corrupt. But as bad as that all is, it's what we come to expect from politicians. It's what politicians do best. That's an unfortunately low bar, and a sad reflection on our electoral process. But what is the realistic alternative? Trump's instability and reckless rhetoric kicks things up a notch, because it actually threatens our security and democratic values in a more fundamental way. He would take social progress back decades and make a mockery of our country. His unpredictability and disdain for facts and expert advice is dangerous--it goes beyond simple ideological disagreement.

Here's another "crazy lib" who apparently can't see the forest for the trees either. Republican Joe Scarborough:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/08/09/the-gop-must-dump-trump/?tid=sm_fb

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Your comparison to Nixon is apt. The problem is, Trump is George Wallace in that analogy.

I've never tried to argue that Hillary isn't crooked and corrupt. But as bad as that all is, it's what we come to expect from politicians. It's what politicians do best. That's an unfortunately low bar, and a sad reflection on our electoral process. But what is the realistic alternative? Trump's instability and reckless rhetoric kicks things up a notch, because it actually threatens our security and democratic values in a more fundamental way. He would take social progress back decades and make a mockery of our country. His unpredictability and disdain for facts and expert advice is dangerous--it goes beyond simple ideological disagreement.

Here's another "crazy lib" who apparently can't see the forest for the trees either. Republican Joe Scarborough:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/08/09/the-gop-must-dump-trump/?tid=sm_fb

I'm not voting for him. You ARE voting for her. See the difference? One of us is accepting the lowering of the bar, the other isn't. You all can throw any amount of **** against the wall that you want re: Trump. It's well deserved. She is as bad or worse than him.

You can save all the links. I agree with them, he is a disaster. Now I ask, when are you all going to wake up and realize the same holds true for her.

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

I'm admittedly far from a conservative, though I did grow up as one. The question I have for my conservative friends is what is the bridge too far in supporting someone like Donald Trump? Today, he joked about people shooting Hillary Clinton. Yes it was a joke, but just another in a long line of statements and off the cuff crass-ness that was previously unimaginable in a Presidential candidate in the modern era. (Or as Trump supporters would say, another blatant example of the unfair media piling on by reporting the words that Trump says in public).

There are so many sad layers to this, not the least of which is that the Republican party will cease to be taken seriously if they don't dump this clown and the incoherent populist ideology he espouses. And if the GOP ceases to be taken seriously as a political force, that's bad for democracy. Even the most unabashed liberal has to understand that one-party rule or one-sided dominance of any ideology will fail to serve the needs of the people over time. America needs two credible parties for government to function properly, and that includes a credible conservative party. And at this point, by almost any standard of measure, the GOP is losing that credibilty. The GOP is selling its soul to know-nothings, and in the process, is proving itself utterly un-credible. To borrow from George Will, the party is demonstrating that it's not qualified to nominate Presidential candidates because they have judged Donald Trump to be a qualified Presidential candidate.

At what point does the Republican party understand that their interests are far better served by punting, destroying Hillary in 2020, and cleansing this scourge of infantile populist nativism from its party? How far does this have to go on? That's without even getting into the question of down-ballot fallout in 2016. Do Republicans really think conservatives, especially moderate fiscal conservatives are just going to forgive and forget this debacle of a campaign?

What do you expect from a party that nominated Sara Palin as VP? The party that has Presidential candidates proudly state during debates that they don't believe in science (evolution, climate change)? The party dominated by rank and file who believe the earth in 6000 years old and man coexisted with dinosaurs? These people are nuts and the rational ones that are left now have to cowtow to the morons to win primaries. It's truly a sad state of affairs. The country does need rational, opposing sides battling for leadership.

As to Trump, the guy is unfit to lead this country. Bashing NATO. Insinuating that he may not adhere to our treaty obligations. Making jokes about 2md Amendment people shooting Hillary. The list goes on. Any one with half a brain can see that he doesn't possess the temperament to be Prez. But the morons are so consumed with hate for Hillary and Obama that they'd rather see this country led over a cliff than elect a steady hand to guide us for the next 4 years. They have lost their minds. And the rational ones have themselves to blame when they welcomed these morons, birthers, racists, et al with open arms into the fold.

 

[rog1187]

What do you expect from a party that nominated Sara Palin as VP? The party that has Presidential candidates proudly state during debates that they don't believe in science (evolution, climate change)? The party dominated by rank and file who believe the earth in 6000 years old and man coexisted with dinosaurs? These people are nuts and the rational ones that are left now have to cowtow to the morons to win primaries. It's truly a sad state of affairs. The country does need rational, opposing sides battling for leadership.

As to Trump, the guy is unfit to lead this country. Bashing NATO. Insinuating that he may not adhere to our treaty obligations. Making jokes about 2md Amendment people shooting Hillary. The list goes on. Any one with half a brain can see that he doesn't possess the temperament to be Prez. But the morons are so consumed with hate for Hillary and Obama that they'd rather see this country led over a cliff than elect a steady hand to guide us for the next 4 years. They have lost their minds. And the rational ones have themselves to blame when they welcomed these morons, birthers, racists, et al with open arms into the fold.

LOL "temperament"...the buzz word of the media-crats. Nice to see you don't stray too far from the feeding spoon.

 

[TarHeelEer]

than elect a steady hand to guide us for the next 4 years

[roll]

 

[rog1187]

[roll]

Yep - that steady hand will also be pushing us off a cliff as well.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

I'm admittedly far from a conservative, though I did grow up as one. The question I have for my conservative friends is what is the bridge too far in supporting someone like Donald Trump? Today, he joked about people shooting Hillary Clinton. Yes it was a joke, but just another in a long line of statements and off the cuff crass-ness that was previously unimaginable in a Presidential candidate in the modern era. (Or as Trump supporters would say, another blatant example of the unfair media piling on by reporting the words that Trump says in public).

There are so many sad layers to this, not the least of which is that the Republican party will cease to be taken seriously if they don't dump this clown and the incoherent populist ideology he espouses. And if the GOP ceases to be taken seriously as a political force, that's bad for democracy. Even the most unabashed liberal has to understand that one-party rule or one-sided dominance of any ideology will fail to serve the needs of the people over time. America needs two credible parties for government to function properly, and that includes a credible conservative party. And at this point, by almost any standard of measure, the GOP is losing that credibilty. The GOP is selling its soul to know-nothings, and in the process, is proving itself utterly un-credible. To borrow from George Will, the party is demonstrating that it's not qualified to nominate Presidential candidates because they have judged Donald Trump to be a qualified Presidential candidate.

At what point does the Republican party understand that their interests are far better served by punting, destroying Hillary in 2020, and cleansing this scourge of infantile populist nativism from its party? How far does this have to go on? That's without even getting into the question of down-ballot fallout in 2016. Do Republicans really think conservatives, especially moderate fiscal conservatives are just going to forgive and forget this debacle of a campaign?

He's a POS and I can't wait to laugh at him and his supporters on election night. Kansas is closer in the polls than PA. LOL. Blowout.

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

Yep - that steady hand will also be pushing us off a cliff as well.

In your opinion which 50+ GOP national security experts disagree with. So do Sen. Susan Collins, Meg Whitman, former CIA director Morell and many other repubs who haven't lost their minds.

 

[rog1187]

In your opinion which 50+ GOP national security experts disagree with. So do Sen. Susan Collins, Meg Whitman, former CIA director Morell and many other repubs who haven't lost their minds.

She'll be Obama's third term...he's a terrible leader...you're going to tell me his foreign policy has been stellar?

 

[BigLickMountee]

He's a POS and I can't wait to laugh at him and his supporters on election night. Kansas is closer in the polls than PA. LOL. Blowout.

This is one for the record books. She wins by the a margin likely never to be eclipsed.

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

She'll be Obama's third term...he's a terrible leader...you're going to tell me his foreign policy has been stellar?

Typical leap for you-the board's village idiot.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

This is one for the record books. She wins by the a margin likely never to be eclipsed.

I doubt she'll touch Reagan in '84, but it is going to be a landslide.

 

[Fingon]

I'm not voting for him. You ARE voting for her. See the difference? One of us is accepting the lowering of the bar, the other isn't. You all can throw any amount of **** against the wall that you want re: Trump. It's well deserved. She is as bad or worse than him.

Technically, I don't think I've ever stated I would vote for her. Since I live in WV, it's a moot point, because Trump will carry West Virginia even if he dropped out of the race or died. So in actuality, I may leave POTUS blank and just vote down-ballot. Even though I see her as the lesser evil, and highly preferable to Trump, I'm certainly not excited at the prospect of her becoming POTUS either.

Having said that, if I lived in a state where the race was more competitive, I probably would vote for her simply for the sake of not only preventing his election, but to contribute to an overwhelming margin as much as possible. Besides all the negatives of Trump himself, I would hope that an epic blowout would perhaps shake the GOP back to reality the next time. (Maybe that hope is in vain, given the dullard underbelly of America that Trump has brought to light). They need to ditch the know-nothing populism if they are to continue as a serious party, imo.

I know you disagree, but that's where I'm coming from.

 

[Fingon]

I doubt she'll touch Reagan in '84, but it is going to be a landslide.

Depends whether you are talking popular vote or electoral college. Popular vote, maybe. But given the partisan divide of today and people's ever-shrinking tendencies on ticket splitting, I think he would still carry the vast majority of red states even in a popular vote landslide scenario. Similarly, Democrats aren't in danger of losing states like NY, CA, New England, etc. anytime soon, like they did in the 80's. Those days of 40+ state sweeps for either party are probably gone for good. Or at least until the next major disruption of the status quo, such as emergence of a new party.

 

[Mntneer]

I find it laughable that people are criticizing Trump voters for their support of the unstable man while defending their vote of a corrupt dishonest liar.

They weren't "fibs"... they were bold face ******* lies... and if you can't recognize that then either your a dishonest hypocrite in your own right or a ******* moron.

Meanwhile... someone that is EXACTLY what people claim they would vote for is going to be on the ballot come November.

Bridge too far my ***.....

 

[TarHeelEer]

know-nothing populism

NYT - Steve Rattner

 

[WhiteTailEER]

1. "Extremely careless"
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."
2. "Should have known"
"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."
3. "Especially concerning"
"None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government -- or even with a commercial email service like Gmail."
4. "Still obligated to protect it"
"Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked 'classified' in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."
5. "Generally lacking"
While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified email systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information that is found elsewhere in the government.
6. "Hostile actors"
"We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent."
7. "Sophisticated adversaries"
"She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account."

And yet Hillary would look you in the face and tell you James Comey did not say those things.

Do you honestly think Trump will do any better if put in the position to have access to what she has? What in the world have you seen out of him that would lead you to believe that he would do any better?

50 Republicans with a lot of experience in national security matters have come out and said that he is far too reckless to be the president. There's no way to paint that as media bias, or left-wing spin, or misinterpretation of what he's said.

There has been a consistent, non-stop flow of reckless statements made by him. There has been a consistent, non-stop flow of statements that indicate he has no knowledge of the constitution or understanding of our laws.

You really think we can trust the guy making the 3AM tweets that he makes, with our most critical national secrets?

People say, "well, he's smart enough to surround himself with smart people and he will listen to them". Clearly he hasn't done that yet, so where is the confidence that it will happen in the future?


None of those statements should be construed as any kind of defense of Hillary. As somebody else said, if anybody else did 1/10th of what she did, we'd lose our careers at a minimum, and most likely be in jail.

But looking at Trump's behavior, and trying to extrapolate that out, there's no way that I can come to any other conclusion except that he would be 10 times worse.

Why pick between two candidates in which you have to try to argue "well, which is worse?" when you will actually have a GOOD candidate to pick?

 

[WVUCOOPER]

I find it laughable that people are criticizing Trump voters for their support of the unstable man while defending their vote of a corrupt dishonest liar.

They weren't "fibs"... they were bold face ****ing lies... and if you can't recognize that then either your a dishonest hypocrite in your own right or a ****ing moron.

Meanwhile... someone that is EXACTLY what people claim they would vote for is going to be on the ballot come November.

Bridge too far my ***.....

His supporters are gullible idiots. I can't wait to enjoy their tears. I don't think a 3rd party is the answer, I think a stable GOP is what we need. Trump's November shellacking should move the party towards an actual national party. We shall see. 2018 and 2020 should be layups.

 

[TarHeelEer]

Why pick between two candidates in which you have to try to argue "well, which is worse?" when you will actually have a GOOD candidate to pick?

Because he doesn't have an R or a D after his name.

I don't agree with everything about Johnson. He's for gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, and in some regards from what I know status quo on immigration.

But of the three, he is by far the most sane and trustworthy.

 

[TarHeelEer]

I don't think a 3rd party is the answer, I think a stable GOP is what we need.

I don't think you understand the depth of betrayal some on the right feel that caused Trump in the first place. The GOP is going to be a lot smaller after this race, one way or the other.

 

[WVUBRU]

I don't think you understand the depth of betrayal some on the right feel that caused Trump in the first place. The GOP is going to be a lot smaller after this race, one way or the other.

Very astute and accurate comment, imo

 

[Mntneer]

His supporters are gullible idiots. I can't wait to enjoy their tears. I don't think a 3rd party is the answer, I think a stable GOP is what we need. Trump's November shellacking should move the party towards an actual national party. We shall see. 2018 and 2020 should be layups.

We can't wait 4 years for a "stable" GOP. Hillary gets elected and she'll have the real chance to nominate 2 to 3 judges to the SC. That could create a court that would be heavily slanted for over a generation to come.

And don't think for a second that Trump getting shellacked will do anything to move some voters from an obstructionist mentality.

The GOP nominated 2 VERY VERY moderate and reasonable candidates in McCain and Romeny, neither got the base traction needed to win and neither swayed the "Blue Dog" democrats.

 

[Keyser76]

Very astute and accurate comment, imo

Was it betrayal or unrealistic expectations of what could actually be accomplished with the votes in hand? Ya'll hated compromise so you took nothing instead of what compromising would have gotten you, so were you betrayed or did ya'll fall on your sword?

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Because he doesn't have an R or a D after his name.

I don't agree with everything about Johnson. He's for gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, and in some regards from what I know status quo on immigration.

But of the three, he is by far the most sane and trustworthy.

I don't agree with everything either, although I have no problems with the issues that you mentioned that concern you. The overlying theme behind those thoughts are to get goverernment out of people's personal lives and choices and get focused on government's primary functions.

I don't care if there's a gay couple down the street, or even next door. It has zero impact on my relationships with anybody.

I don't care if there's a bunch of pot heads next door (there are, LOL). They stay in their house or on their porch and aren't out bothering people. I can't do it, but what do I care if somebody else does? I can't eat too much protein either, so what do I care if a bodybuilder takes in 400gm a day? I don't smoke, but what do I care if somebody else does as long as I don't have to breathe it myself?

If somebody is drinking and driving, I care. If somebody is high on pot and driving, I care. If somebody is robbing and raping, I care. If people are abusing the welfare system, I care. I care a lot more that our prisons are for profit and imprisoning people for pot possession is costing us a lot of money ... a helluva lot more than I care about the guys doing it next door. I don't own any guns, but what do I care how many somebody else has? I only care when they use them to commit crimes to infringe on other's lives.

All these other things? People doing whatever and not bothering anybody else? I don't care ... and those are the things that government spends too much time and energy on and Gary Johnson and the Libertarian party want to get out of.


I don't mean to sound like I'm arguing those points with you because I'm not. You have your beliefs, I have mine. I respect yours. Your beliefs don't affect my life at all beyond what I read on the board, so really why would I care what your beliefs are other than to expand my own thoughts?

Live and let live.

Absolutely, Gary Johnson is the most sane and trustworthy ... if he had an R or a D after his name he'd be winning in a landslide. It's a shame that people have such a myopic view of our system.