Hillary Supporters Should Be Worried

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Actually, they were. President Obama was criticized by the GOP as not having enough experience to be President. However, he was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996. In 1999, Obama ran for Congress and lost. From 2003 to 2004, served as chair of the Health and Human Services Committee. In 2004 Obama was elected to the US Senate. Obama served in the US Senate until he campaigned and won the Presidential election in 2008.

What I find interesting is.... the GOP criticized Obama for not having enough political experience to be President. Yet, the GOP is now supporting a GOP candidate that has never held political office before in his life. LOL

Hmmm... what's the difference between the two men. Well, the do have different skin tones. And one is a billionaire while the other wasn't. One was married, I believe, three times, one has only been married once. I could go on. But it gets uglier.

But, to answer my questions... I reside in Ohio. Then Senator of Illinois, Barak Obama had done next to nothing for me at the time. But at least he had held public office.

So, I couldn't help but notice, you didn't even answer my questions. You just performed a well trained "re-direct". I'll ask them again:

- How many public offices has Trump held?

- What has Donald Trump done for you and/or those you love?

I'm interested in your answers.

You just don't get it, do you?

The experience that Obama lacked, that continues to disqualify him, is his lack of any experience in the private sector. He has never run a business. He has never taken risks that entrepreneurs have to. He was a "community organizer", AKA race-baiting agitator. Like Sanders, he has never really had a real job outside of government and radical leftist political activism.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Aquila

What I find interesting is.... the GOP criticized Obama for not having enough political experience to be President. Yet, the GOP is now supporting a GOP candidate that has never held political office before in his life. LOL

Hmmm... what's the difference between the two men. Well, the do have different skin tones. And one is a billionaire while the other wasn't. One was married, I believe, three times, one has only been married once. I could go on. But it gets uglier.

I am not jfrog, but I believe the GOP was comparing BHO's experience versus McCain's.
In fact, I googled it and that is what I found.
link
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/...ref=newssearch

And I like the way you manage to throw in the insinuation that Republicans are racists, again.
Typical, but beneath you.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

I'm sorry I'm only now reading this.

First, there are PLENTY of public servants who honorably and admirably serve their country for decades and don't acquire a scintilla of disrepute like that of the Clintons. Shoot---President Obama, the Bushes, President Carter, President Ford, et al haven't come even close to the universe of corruption that is uniquely occupied by Bill and Hillary. There is no way that somehow, some way every area of corruption and deception surrounding the Clintons is the product of conspiracies and political enemies. At some point the weight of evidence demands the verdict that these people are rotten to the core to a degree unparalleled in U.S. history.

I'm not saying that the Clintons have never engaged in dirty politics. I'm not saying that they are perfect people. I've only met them once, and that was back in the mid 90's. They seemed like nice, ordinary, people - polite and well mannered. I had family that knew them though, and those family members were good people and never seriously criticized the Clintons unless they felt the Clintons were compromising with conservatives.

The way I see it is like this... every couple years a new "scandal" involving either Bill or Hillary. However, in 30 years NOTHING has been able to stick. Now, either all the scandalous charges are part of a public smear campaign designed to damage their reputation (it is a known political tactic).... or the Republicans are the most idiotic band of buffoons who are incapable of discovery on the issues. When bipartisan committees review all possible evidence of wrong doing and let you go every time, in 30 years, c'mon, it's a witch-hunt. In 30 years.... something would have stuck. So, I don't believe the charges. I know that in America you're innocent until proven guilty. To this date every court, bipartisan committee, review panel, etc. has failed to find legal evidence that Hillary is guilty of a single criminal act. If they are so corrupt, and it's obvious, prove it. That's what America is about. Nothing has been proven because nothing can be proven. They are baseless lies or exaggerations.

Donald Trump is appealing to many Americans in large part because he HASN'T held public office. Americans are weary of the political class, the established politicians who really don't accomplish much except for protecting their own power structure. Washington is a cesspool of incestuous relationships that has failed the common man, motivated by self preservation and enrichment. People aren't supporting Trump because he has done anything for them, it's because the political elites have done very little FOR most Americans, but rather have done much AGAINST most Americans. Big Government is bloated, overreaching, intrusive, counter productive and self defeating. Trump says what many Americans feel. Trump promises to upend the status quo. Trump promises to be decisive and strong. Trump promises to get important things done.

I can understand. However, we're dealing with the most powerful office on earth. First, on the domestic front you need relationships and contacts within Congress to get anything done. You also need to know how the process works, who the movers and shakers are, etc., etc. Also, if a man has no experience, how can he make any promises to make any changes? He'll be at the mercy of special interests groups and lobbyists who promise to make him look good and offer special deals to him to get things done, things that benefit them of course. Also, the President deals with international issues. You need to know WHY we need to be full partners with the NATO alliance. You need to know which countries are out to exploit your ignorance and lack of experience for their own gain, like Russia. You need to know the behind the scene stories of which nations are really not our friends despite what they tell media. You need to be able to weigh your words carefully, one false statement and you could cause an international incident. For example, after Trump began repeatedly asking about the use of nuclear weapons, North Korea stepped up their nuclear testing and regional posturing. Russia became emboldened to rant about how dangerous America is to the world's stability. And other nuclear powers started wondering why such language would be acceptable when if they were reported as having said anything of that nature they might face severe political fallout or sanctions. When Hillary was serving as Secretary of State, she dew a hard line with Russia and their military operations within the Ukraine by calling to order the NATO alliance. Putin cozies up to Trump (knowing that some of Trump's biggest investors are in Russia) and the next thing you know, Trump is saying that he'd consider not abiding by our current arrangement with NATO. The office of President isn't a mayoral office. One needs real knowledge and experience to navigate those waters well. Trump isn't even President yet and the NATO alliance is weakened. Why? Because if Trump isn't going to stand by our previous treaties with NATO, why should any other NATO nation abide by them? The alliance is weakened and our enemies have reason to believe that if they play their hand right, they can avoid facing any backlash from NATO. If he were running for mayor, a State Senate seat, or maybe even a governor's office (but that's stretching it), I might agree with you. But to elect a President without experience is downright dangerous.

While Trump has never held public office, dealt with international military relations, or dealt with the legislative process, he has a history in business. Trump has 8 epic business failures. He has a scandalous racket with Trump University. Trump has filed bankruptcy in business four times. Trump has had over 3,000 lawsuits filed against him for everything from not paying contactors, to violating contracts, to even misappropriating charitable funds. There are three lawsuits against Trump University for fraudulent claims. He's been sued by the Justice Department for discrimination. And he's settled real-estate lawsuits, and even an attempted rape lawsuit, out of court. Trump has tried his best to avoid any oversight or appearances in court. While Hillary has all kinds of outlandish accusations against her... she's been repeatedly reviewed, investigated, and cleared. Trump has an ocean of lawsuits, and even criminal charges, which he seeks to settle out of court to avoid any review or criminal convictions. Essentially, Trump is a billionaire playboy who is used to buying his way out of every charge and accusation against him. Interestingly, even Hillary Clinton doesn't have a track record this bad. Yet everyone believes she has to be more corrupt than Trump. Dig into the details. Critique Trump. Go after him and study his history like one looking to dig up dirt. With Hillary, you'll find crazy conspiracy stories off of right wing websites and conspiracy sites like InfoWars. You'll find nothing serious in the public record. But Trump.... you'll be shocked. This one is a good start:

Why the Donald Trump child rape lawsuit is credible and can’t be dismissed
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-b..._10619944.html

Donald Trump Rape Lawsuit: Did He Abuse a 13 Year Old Girl? Facts To Know About the Child Rape Case
http://www.parentherald.com/articles...girl-facts.htm

A billionaire playboy, who compliments a good friend who is a pedophile. A billionaire playboy with a history of misogyny and abuse. I'm typically not hateful about anyone's sexuality or sexual proclivities. It's really their private business as long as it is between consensual adults. But Donald Trump might very well be a billionaire pedophile. That, I cannot stomach.

So, even if we imagine that the worst accusation against each of these candidates is true, you'd have:

1.) Hillary - Murder
2.) Trump - Child Rape

Nope, even if we assume the worst of each, Hillary still comes out as being better than Trump.

Frankly, when Trump's business experience and personal history is truly compared to Hillary... I think Hillary clearly is the better candidate. But your average American knows nothing about Donald Trump, so the illusion is that Hillary has the worst history.

I'm happy for your daughter, that she received the help she needs. If that is your motivation for supporting Hillary, I understand. However, for any good that can be pointed to for the support of Hillary, you have many, many disturbing facts and tendencies that cause many Americans discomfort that this woman will be the most powerful person on the planet. The pattern of selling their influence and pay for play from their days in Little Rock to the Bill Clinton White House, from the Clinton Foundation to the State Department, it seems these people have no conscience, no soul, no moral fiber.

Every politician has worked out deals like pay for play. It's not uncommon. Is it ethical? I don't think so, but it is politics. Every other accusation has been repeatedly reviewed and dismissed. So, the accusations against her evaporate and go on being repeated on conspiracy websites. But her actual contributions to the political process has brought real world help for me and my family. Myth & Conspiracy vs. Realty.

Donald Trump is far from an ideal candidate, but by comparison, there is no question who many Americans will vote for, and I believe he is going to win.

Are you really comparing? I mean, really comparing?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Originalist

You just don't get it, do you?

The experience that Obama lacked, that continues to disqualify him, is his lack of any experience in the private sector. He has never run a business. He has never taken risks that entrepreneurs have to. He was a "community organizer", AKA race-baiting agitator. Like Sanders, he has never really had a real job outside of government and radical leftist political activism.

And things are still better than they were under our last "business minded" President, President Bush. lol

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

I am not jfrog, but I believe the GOP was comparing BHO's experience versus McCain's.
In fact, I googled it and that is what I found.
link
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/...ref=newssearch

And I like the way you manage to throw in the insinuation that Republicans are racists, again.
Typical, but beneath you.

I was just pointing out the obvious.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I was just pointing out the obvious.

No, you were not.
You were attempting to paint Republicans as hypocrites and racists.
And when you are called on it, you cannot even admit it.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

No, you were not.
You were attempting to paint Republicans as hypocrites and racists.
And when you are called on it, you cannot even admit it.

How am I not admitting it? I honestly think that the GOP has a bigger problem with appearing racist in this election. The majority of minority voters in this country also think so. I mean, are minorities coming out in droves to support GOP candidates, and I'm just not aware of it?

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Aquila

How am I not admitting it? I honestly think that the GOP has a bigger problem with appearing racist in this election. The majority of minority voters in this country also think so. I mean, are minorities coming out in droves to support GOP candidates, and I'm just not aware of it?

How could they not when the media and other people LIE about it.
Take a look at how the media is portraying the latest two police shootings of black men.
Tulsa - original narrative was a black pastor, whose SUV had broken down in the road as shot as his hands were up.
Now we know that two 911 calls were made that led police to believe that he was on something, he did not respond to officers commands, he kept reaching for his pockets, he put his hands up without the police ever requesting it, he walked back to his SUV with police telling him to stop, a vial of PCP was found in the SUV, the SUV was STILL RUNNING and wasn't broken down, he spent 4 years in prison, in 2012 his own father said that his son had a problem with PCP.
Charlotte - original narrative was that disabled man was shot in his car as he was reading a book.
Now we have a photo that shows a gun dropped after he was shot.

Repeat a lie long enough and most people will believe it.

[n david]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

How could they not when the media and other people LIE about it.
Take a look at how the media is portraying the latest two police shootings of black men.
Tulsa - original narrative was a black pastor, whose SUV had broken down in the road as shot as his hands were up.
Now we know that two 911 calls were made that led police to believe that he was on something, he did not respond to officers commands, he kept reaching for his pockets, he put his hands up without the police ever requesting it, he walked back to his SUV with police telling him to stop, a vial of PCP was found in the SUV, the SUV was STILL RUNNING and wasn't broken down, he spent 4 years in prison, in 2012 his own father said that his son had a problem with PCP.
Charlotte - original narrative was that disabled man was shot in his car as he was reading a book.
Now we have a photo that shows a gun dropped after he was shot.

Repeat a lie long enough and most people will believe it.

The media is all in for a race war, and liberals and Democrats are doing what they can to help push people off the cliff.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

How am I not admitting it? I honestly think that the GOP has a bigger problem with appearing racist in this election. The majority of minority voters in this country also think so. I mean, are minorities coming out in droves to support GOP candidates, and I'm just not aware of it?

Notice how, in your world, "racist" means "white conservative".

Let's see, because "minorities" don't support a candidate "in droves", it must be because the candidate and his supporters are "racist". OK, what about the corollary, "because non-minorities don't support a candidate, it must be because that candidate and her supporters are racist."

Typical democrat, always pandering, always using the race card. The "equality" you seek will never be achieved as long as people like you are involved in the political narrative. You guys are your own worst enemy.