Hillary Clinton's Strength: Foresight

[Belsnickel]

(10-20-2016, 12:32 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I'd have to disagree with you there. I think Trump's lack of knowledge would be a good thing because there'd be less chance of him screwing up this country. Not to mention that he doesn't even have much of the GOP's support and Trump would be the very definition of lame duck president. With Trump as president, the only bad thing that could (would) happen would be how the world views America, but it's not like they view us that favorably as is.

On top of that, Clinton actually has support from her party so she could actually get things done, things that could (would) prove harmful to this country. And that's one of the many reasons why I find her more dangerous as president than Trump.

I don't want a lame duck POTUS, though. I want a POTUS that is going to do their job, that knows how to do their job, and knows how to do it effectively. If a POTUS does things they shouldn't do there are mechanisms for that, but a POTUS that is ineffective leaves us vulnerable in far too many ways.

Sorry for the delayed response,I just saw yours.

[fredtoast]

(10-20-2016, 12:32 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I'd have to disagree with you there. I think Trump's lack of knowledge would be a good thing because there'd be less chance of him screwing up this country. Not to mention that he doesn't even have much of the GOP's support and Trump would be the very definition of lame duck president. With Trump as president, the only bad thing that could (would) happen would be how the world views America, but it's not like they view us that favorably as is.

On top of that, Clinton actually has support from her party so she could actually get things done, things that could (would) prove harmful to this country. And that's one of the many reasons why I find her more dangerous as president than Trump.

So you don't see any problems in our country that need to be addressed?

Seriously?

[Rotobeast]

(10-21-2016, 02:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why would you not say the same thing about Trump supporters?  Do you think he can be trusted?

He cannot be trusted.

However, we're he to shave his head and change his name to Lex Luger Trump, I'd afford him some consideration.



Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[*PhilHos*]

(10-21-2016, 02:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why would you not say the same thing about Trump supporters?  Do you think he can be trusted?

I would say the same thing about Trump supporters. And no, I do not think he can be trusted. However, this is the HIllary Clinton subforum, hence why my focus was on her.

(10-21-2016, 02:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I have seen no evidence that Hillary every abused her power as a public official (Senator, Sec of State).  So i don't know why she should not be trusted as President.

Yeah, having an unsecure email server that is vulernable to attack and then lying about it (including while under oath) are all signs of a trustworthy candidate (and don't get me started on all the unnecessary lies she's told - i.e. landing under sniper fire). Not to mention her pandering to every non-white male demographic has her flip flopping on more issues than John Kerry.
Please, fred, explain how she IS a trustworthy candidate. 

(10-21-2016, 02:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Let me explain why so many people attack trump supporters.

Oh, so we're back to judging a whole group based on the actions of a few? I guess you agree that all Muslims should be banned from entering this country because they're all terrorists? Or maybe we SHOULD racially profile because blacks are criminals?

BTW, here's some Clinton supporters:
http://usuncut.com/politics/hillary-clinton-racist-sexist-tumblr/





http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3718228/Hillary-Clinton-supporter-23-attacks-elderly-pro-Trump-protester-67-man-tries-stop-burning-American-flag-outside-Pittsburgh-rally.html

I'd show more, but my point you're either overlooking or intentionally ignoring is not that there aren't nasty supporters of either candidate, but rather, you should not denigrate ALL the supporters of either candidate regardless of the actions of a few.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-21-2016, 05:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't want a lame duck POTUS, though. I want a POTUS that is going to do their job, that knows how to do their job, and knows how to do it effectively. If a POTUS does things they shouldn't do there are mechanisms for that, but a POTUS that is ineffective leaves us vulnerable in far too many ways.

Sorry for the delayed response,I just saw yours.

No problem.

I, too, don't want a lame duck POTUS, but I'd rather have that then one who I believe is more dangerous than a lame duck POTUS.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-22-2016, 09:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So you don't see any problems in our country that need to be addressed?

Seriously?

Wow. You've just taken strawman arguing to a whole new level.

Please show me where I said that. [Annoying noise] Too late. I didn't. Thanks for playing.

[tigerseye]

So Project Veritas gets them on tape admitting what they do and thats not proof? As CNN tries to spin it away. The Main Stream Propaganda Outlets don't want you to see that.

Main Stream Propaganda response "Qiuck lets discredit this. We must keep the public clueless with our propaganda."

Where is the "Dirty Cop"? Shouldn't he be investigating this? Oh! Thats right, I forgot, he is bought and paid for.

The Truth Will Set You Free.





or maybe not!!!!!

[Belsnickel]

(10-24-2016, 03:03 PM)tigerseye Wrote: So Project Veritas gets them on tape admitting what they do and thats not proof? As CNN tries to spin it away. The Main Stream Propaganda Outlets don't want you to see that.

Main Stream Propaganda response "Qiuck lets discredit this. We must keep the public clueless with our propaganda."

Where is the "Dirty Cop"? Shouldn't he be investigating this? Oh! Thats right, I forgot, he is bought and paid for.

The Truth Will Set You Free.





or maybe not!!!!!

Well, when the tape comes from someone that is known for creative editing and, I have heard though not verified, has received payments from the Trump Foundation, it can be difficult to accept that as proof.

[Griever]

(10-24-2016, 03:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, when the tape comes from someone that is known for creative editing and, I have heard though not verified, has received payments from the Trump Foundation, it can be difficult to accept that as proof.

yeah, discredited what, 2 or 3 times, and received a 10k "donation" from trump back on 5/13/15

[fredtoast]

(10-24-2016, 03:03 PM)tigerseye Wrote: Where is the "Dirty Cop"? Shouldn't he be investigating this? Oh! Thats right, I forgot, he is bought and paid for.

What you forgot is that there is no evidence of this at all.  This is just something you made up because you do not agree with his decision.

(10-24-2016, 03:03 PM)tigerseye Wrote: The Truth Will Set You Free.





or maybe not!!!!!

The "truth" will set some people free, but not the people who believe what they want to believe instead of what is real.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-25-2016, 09:15 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The "truth" will set some people free, but not the people who believe what they want to believe instead of what is real.

For evidence, look no further than fred who believes Hillary is a trustworthy candidate also worthy of being president. 

[Rotobeast]

(10-25-2016, 01:33 PM)PhilHos Wrote: For evidence, look no further than fred who believes Hillary is a trustworthy candidate also worthy of being president. 

Well...... he is getting 5 Madonna hummers.



Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[fredtoast]

(10-25-2016, 01:33 PM)PhilHos Wrote: For evidence, look no further than fred who believes Hillary is a trustworthy candidate also worthy of being president. 

I don't make up lies to support Hillary or discredit Trump.

That is what I meant about "truth".

So I don't have any idea what your comment means.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-26-2016, 09:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't make up lies to support Hillary or discredit Trump.

That is what I meant about "truth".

So I don't have any idea what your comment means.

It's not that difficult to understand, fred. I'm saying that you're one of those "people who believe what they want to believe instead of what is real" because of your belief that Hillary is somehow a trustworthy candidate.

[fredtoast]

(10-27-2016, 12:21 PM)PhilHos Wrote: It's not that difficult to understand, fred. I'm saying that you're one of those "people who believe what they want to believe instead of what is real" because of your belief that Hillary is somehow a trustworthy candidate.

No.. I simply believe the results of every single impartial investigation into allegations that Hillary has ever done anything illegal or ever sold her authority/power as Senator or Secretary of State to 

You, on the other hand, blindly swallow every rumor and unsupported conspiracy theory that the right wing echo chamber feeds you about how corrupt Hillary will be as President.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-27-2016, 06:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.. I simply believe the results of every single impartial investigation into allegations that Hillary has ever done anything illegal or ever sold her authority/power as Senator or Secretary of State to 

You, on the other hand, blindly swallow every rumor and unsupported conspiracy theory that the right wing echo chamber feeds you about how corrupt Hillary will be as President.

Your 2nd statement is so false, even Trump is ashamed for you.

So even though James Comey said that Hillary was "extremely careless" and that "there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information" you still think she can be trusted as president. And yet, I'm the one that blindly follows something.