Reasons to support Hillary
 

I need some help with this one and thought maybe someone here could help...these Hillary supporters didn't help.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/watters-w...005743286.html

These companies apparently have reasons to support Hillary....
http://observer.com/2016/09/breaking...luence-buyers/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess even Spence can't come up with reasons to support Hillary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He only defends.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you want to increase the number of voters for your candidate I would think giving reasons to support them works better than just defending them or to put it other terms, don't just put lipstick on the pig tell us why they aren't a pig.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sometimes that's all you got
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I dunno, not a huge Hillary supporter. As far as Trump is concerned...
in '62 my dad had the car packed to go to a fall out shelter during the Cuban missile crisis. 50% chance we had a nuclear war then. If it were
Trump on the trigger, more like 90. Case closed.

You've made an accusation. You did not make a case.

heard a Hillary supporting talking head explain the other day that they were frustrated that Hillary's primary message as to why someone should support her is that she's "not Trump"....problem is that each time she tries to characterize Trump as a misogynist....Bill and all of his dirty deeds pop up..... as unstable....she keels over somewhere....as reckless.....more emails are released.....as an advantaged rich white guy....her ties to wall street and the advantaged super rich are shown....as crooked....we're reminded that she leads the league and has set the bar very high/or low, depending on how you view it..
......don't know about the story running on Drudge but now Bill Clinton's "son" has popped up?...apparently if Obama had a son he'd look like Bill Clinton's son? which I guess makes sense because Bill Clinton was actually our first black president......this too funny and gets more amusing all the time...which I guess is the point of reality TV...and WIKI leak is set to drop the big one? :lurk:

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/10/1...hments?ref=yfp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Would you rather have a president that was willing to defend the country or one that was willing to sell it out??

Some may find this a reason to support her.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/10/1...abedin?ref=yfp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

none that I know of unless you want corrupt big gov't and the status quo of the obamination. they both suck - it's more about platforms for me.

If three quarters of the country feels we are heading in the wrong direction, then why is it that half the country will vote for her? I guess they are voting with emotions and not their brains, or they are listening to the biased media, or they have no clue what it takes to lead a country with strong leadership. If Clinton wins, our leadership will be weaker not stronger and it will be the end of this Republic. :(

Because the other guy is no prize either...

and they are subscribing to the "The Devil you know is better than the Devil you don't" philosophy

So people know she is a liar and corrupt, but willing to go with more of the same as opposed to someone who still believes in the rule of law. I get it, the moral compass is tilted.:doh:

Because she's the only major party candidate on the ballot who answers to the description of "sane and responsible adult". That's
about it. The other candidate, as his debate performances have shown, does not.

The FBI didn't label Hillary as responsible, they labeled her reckless. Didn't someone on her staff inquire about if she knew what planet she is on.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No doubt about it. Under any other circumstances, against any other candidate, it would likely cost her the election. But this is no ordinary other candidate.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't typically like to discuss politics, it's a good way to loose friends and make enemy's. I don't like Hilary, but Trump is a loose cannon and he can't keep his foot out of his mouth long enough to speak to the issues. He comes across as a narcissistic, egotistical, 13 year old in a suit. Last night i was just waiting for him to yell I am rubber and you are glue, anything you say bounces off me and sticks to you.

I am personally embarrassed as an American, that the world is seeing that these two clowns are the best of the best and this is what is is store for the USA.

Makes me want to vomit, what a said state of affairs and if I have to watch one more negative ad; I think I'm trashing the TV remote.

heard Juan Williams whining that he's horrified that Trump is telling his supporters that the system is rigged and stacked against them...

ummmm Juan...

that's what Democrats tell their supporters every election cycle :crying:

Couldn't have said it better myself
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't find it difficult to decide on how to vote. I am not embarrassed as an American what the world thinks of our "clowns." The "world's" elites often think of all Americans as clowns. They do appreciate our military and monetary aid, but still consider us as clowns--powerful and rich clowns. Actually, our own American elites think of the rest of us as either clowns or useful idiots.

And I don't give a rat's butt about the two personalities running for President. The long history of our long line of Presidents is sprinkled with clowns, at least in the opinion of those who didn't, or don't, like them, but many who served the country well. Like the Rolling Stones said:

"You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometime you find
You get what you need"

I find it easy, and imperative that we need, if we wish to preserve American foundational principles, to vote for the candidate who is most likely to do that. And if you think that candidate is Hillary, you have a different idea of what government is for than I do.

Unfortunately the person I felt had the most promise didn't make it to the big show and what are my choices? On the one hand we have a women I don't trust and gives us business as usual, or a man I wouldn't trust alone with my sister, my girlfriend or my money. Two very bad choices IMHO and Election Day can't come soon enough for me.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I absolutely understand your dilemma. But one of the two is going to be President.

I don't think you have to worry about either of them being alone with your sister, or your girlfriend. As far as your money goes, neither of them personally needs it. One of them has promised to spend more of the nation's money than the other. But the President, alone, can't run up the nation's debt. It takes Congress to abet or instigate the squandering of our wealth.

It seems that Democrat Congress people and most Republican Congress types would prefer to run up that debt, if past performance is any indication. And a lot of the Repub Congress folks seem like they would rather "work" with Hillary than with Trump even though he has proposed very "conservative" cabinet members and SCOTUS Judges. Makes you wonder. It seems that, as has been their way, many Repubs would want to continue "business as usual" as you put it.

It seems that Trump is the outsider to the Washington establishment. And if that establishment in its current form fears the outsider, that is an indication that it wants to continue "business as usual."

My opinion, if it is of any help with your dilemma, is that being concerned with what our government, in principle, really is, would be more of a concern than the personality of the candidates. Ask yourself what you really and fundamentally want your Federal Government to be. And consider how every American, regardless of how different they may be from you, can equally be served by government as you define it. Consider how much power you want government to have in defining your life. Be real, don't submit to platitudes that sound nice. What is it that you most fundamentally want from government, what abides from day to day, year to year, generation to generation, not that which may or may not temporarily plug a hole in the dike but that which guarantees a dike that is impenetrable against a government that rules beyond the limits that you think are just and viable for the well being of all our people.

If you believe that government should be able to do whatever it wishes and even to define what our "rights" are in order to make our lives viable, happy, and free, then you could probably consider Hillary the better of a bad choice.

If you want the Federal Government to be limited to defined duties, and that you have "rights" beyond the reach of government, and you want to define your own life so long as it doesn't take away someone else's right to do so, you could most likely consider Trump as the preferable odious choice.

And if you want a change from business as usual, which is more likely to make that happen, the outsider or the insider?

I think, if past is prologue, that if Hillary is elected, things will progress as usual at an even faster rate. With Trump, that may or may not happen. But the foreboding is that there will be conflict between Trumpers and the status quo. And it would be difficult for the Republicans, if they hold Congress, to refuse his SCOTUS nominations, which may be our last hope of stopping business as usual from finally achieving government by, of, and for government, rather than government by, of and for the People.

Accusations is all most have have provided against Hilliary for months

yet you are 1 of the few that have made the case For as to why Trump would be a better Choice (one issue) which is your choice.. I choose not to take a narrow view of the next 4 years
yet I clearly understand the Potus is not the issue its congress if either win its congress who will make the difference.. if they choose to do anything

He is unfit just by this statement alone

Donald Trump Says He'll Accept The Results Of The Election ... If He Wins

I am voting for Hillary because she is the best qualified choice of the 2 in a huge spectrum over Trump

you dont hire a plumber to wire your your house

yet some are willing to hire a foul mouth wrecking ball operator to FIX the Washington establishment... because he thinks The Potus can say your Fired !!

giving Hillary the power of the Presidency is like hiring a known pedophile to run your day care and hire the staff....whatever crazy stuff Donald may say....what Hillary will do is far, far worse.....:btu:

I believe it was Obama who said Hilary will say anything and do nothing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pretty close....

Obama: "I’m Barack Obama, running for president and I approve this message."

Announcer: "It’s what’s wrong with politics today. Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected. Now she’s making false attacks on Barack Obama.

"Hillary Clinton. She’ll say anything, and change nothing. It’s time to turn the page. Paid for by Obama for America."


this is still pretty accurate :bl:

"Unfortunately the person I felt had the most promise didn't make it to the big show "

Same for me.

"what are my choices?"

You have the same two wretched choices that I have. I will plug my nose and vote for the one whose policies are more in line with my personal beliefs. We aren't going to be proud of either one.

"a man I wouldn't trust alone with my sister"

He's not seeking to court your sister, he wants to be POTUS. I wouldn't let Bill Clinton alone with my wife either, but he was a pretty decent president IMO.

It would be great to have someone you admire as well as agree with. The GOP nominated two extremely admirable men in the last 2 cycles, and the electorate said "no thanks". This isn't the first time we will be looking at a POTUS whose personal ethics were lacking. I'd rather have a jerk who might improve some things, than a swell guy who is incompetent.

"Accusations is all most have have provided against Hilliary for months "

Is it merely an accusation to call her a serial liar? How many lies would you like us to cite? Is it an accusation to say that she claimed that 25% of the country is "deplorable"? You specifically asked me for evidence that she is running on hate, I pointed out the deplorables remark, and you dodged. It gets tiresome...

"Donald Trump Says He'll Accept The Results Of The Election ... If He Wins"

Trump is getting a lot of heat for not stating that he'd accept a loss and go away. Have all of you forgotten what happened in 2000? Did Al Gore accept defeat graciously and walk away? Because unless I was hallucinating for a few weeks, I remember him fighting that all the way to the US Supreme Court. But Trump is supposed to promise that he won't do that, 3 weeks out?

With liberals, it's ALWAYS "do as I say, not as I do".

"yet some are willing to hire a foul mouth wrecking ball operator to FIX the Washington establishment... because he thinks The Potus can say your Fired !! "

Is that why his supporters are voting for him? Because he had a catch phrase on a TV show? Or is it because a huge majority of the population thinks the country is heading in the wrong direction?

To me, the most sacred human right is the very right to be born, which is the sine qua non of every other right. If you take that right away from someone, it's hard to then impress that person with offers of free college tuition or free health care.

To a great many people in this country (myself included) the philosophy of liberalism fosters a culture of helplessness and dependency, and robs the individual of initiative, dignity, and freedom. Look at any of our nation's beleaguered inner cities for all the evidence you will ever need of this. Many of us believe that the greatest freedom you can bestow on another person (after the freedom to be alive in the first place) is a good job in a time of economic prosperity.

I'm not expecting you to agree with that definition of human rights. But is it really so hard to even to understand how people can view the world differently than liberals do?

Like you I personally dislike Donald Trump. I think he is a rude, obnoxious boor. But I like him a lot more than I like Hillary Clinton, who for 30 years has proven herself to be a greedy pathological liar on the world stage who will say anything for money or power and a serial enabler of the abuse of women in her private life. How you can regard her as an icon of feminism I'll never know. What feminist would be married to Bill Clinton?

it's remarkable how much the leftists conveniently forget as they get on their high horses sniffing the air above them :lama:

there is either an epidemic of amnesia or a complete lack of self awareness throughout the left...

Trump sucks...but he still has yet to sink below the very low bar set by the Clinton Crime Syndicate

Better get your wallet out...
http://www.redstate.com/laborunionre...care-illegals/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You've made an accusation. You have not made a case.

The easy answer by Trump would have been , "Yes, I'll abide by the results " . I like how he will double down and stick to his beliefs .
The hypocracy of the media, the Democrats and many in the GOP on this amazes me .
All those that ran against Donald in the primary signed a pledge to support the winner . How did that work out .
Believe me , his stand on this is getting him votes, not losing them.
Besides , everyone with a shred of a brain knows the system has been corrupted.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There you go with your metaphors again. The first is uninspiring and doesn't "qualify" as a true comparison to electing a President. The second is more passionate and picturesque. But having confidence in the veracity of such a metaphor (or composite of derogatory memes) depends on the confidence one can place on its author's ability to see things clearly and deeply.

My confidence in you being able to create metaphors that truly strike at the heart of an issue has been shaken by so many of your posts. Such as, recalling some off hand, your totally misunderstanding Milo Yannopoulos because you stopped very short of listening to his whole conversation . . . your insistence that a constitutionally guaranteed right against abridgment (the Second Amendment) should have far more restrictions than a constitutionally implied right that is not guaranteed against some restriction (voting) almost that it not be restricted at all . . . your total misunderstanding of Orwell's essay on Nationalism and Patriotism to the point that you didn't see that Nationalism as Orwell described it actually was an indictment of Hillary's Progressivism more than of Trump whom you thought it solely described . . . the total contradiction you unwittingly displayed in one post where you wanted us to listen to the women who were accusing Trump, but in the very same post, the women who were accusing Clinton were to be dismissed (not listened to?) . . . calling O'keefe a "fraud" because of his conviction for the misdemeanor of breaking into Landrieu's office (to which he admitted) when no fraud was committed, if anything it was an attempt to gather truth . . . blaming Trump's rhetoric for the violence and disorder at his rallies, but railing against exposing the plot by Clinton operatives to disrupt those rallies--you support the meme that Trump rhetoric instigates violence but dismiss the truth that much was caused by Clintonites . . . your inability to understand that "interpreting" the Constitution on personal desires for outcomes rather than adhering to constitutional text (the law) is actually rewriting, destroying, the Constitution, not supporting or defending it as is the oath of a Judge to so do, which also casts some subliminal, unconscious, or at best ignorant "fraud" on your own taking of the oath . . . your dismissing the evidence provided by WikiLeaks because of the way it was achieved--killing the messenger syndrome--might work in civil court on statutory grounds, but unconscionable in deciding "qualification" . . . and yet being all shocked by Trumps old disgusting, vulgar words to one person, but not by those who actually exposed and plastered those words in public sight so that all of us could be disgusted, including our sons and daughters to hear words that we would rather they didn't--the messenger is exonerated in that case) . . . your total inability to see comparison's between Hillary's enabling of Bill Cinton's sexual behaviors (which reputedly were more egregious and forced than Trump's) and Trump's behaviors, and the hypocrisy of Hillary being the champion of women's "rights" vs Trump's supposed misogyny . . . and a puzzling, if not stupefying, one, your claim that Trump's comment about voting even if terminally ill was "odd." And nothing more than that--just odd. And, as in the Yannopoulos and Orwell cases, you didn't read or know about the rest--Trump's comment that he was just kidding. And when that was pointed out, you continued to try to paint Trump's comment as some kind of undefinable oddity. You didn't even respond to my example of how it could be compassionate rather than odd. Afterwards, it brought to mind an incident I had some time ago.

While waiting in the checkout line of a grocery store, the woman in front of me and I struck up a conversation. She was there with her husband, who remained a bit glumly silent throughout it. I don't remember how it started. But as it turned out, she was terminally ill with cancer. She was still fairly young, maybe in her thirties and a lot of life that she could have looked forward to if she didn't have the cancer. It was very evident that she was afraid and separated from the life around her because of her illness.

I don't remember how it came to me to say to her that I was also terminal. Her eyes lit up, and for that brief time she shined out of her own emotionally outcast sorrow to, in an upbeat if not hopeful tone, ask me if I had cancer too. I said no, but that we are all terminal, eventually. She laughed and said I had made her day. Her husband was quiet, distant from our conversation, and they left, she with a smiling glance at me as they departed with a full basket of groceries.

I'll never forget that brief encounter. And I'll always remember how her connection with someone, and thereby with everyone, at least momentarily, not only gave her comfort, but enough meaning for the rest of the day, so that she could shop for groceries or do any of the other normal stuff to fill her brief remaining existence.

What is so odd about including a terminally ill person in the normal things that existence is made of? Should we put them aside, disconnected with life, insist that they should not trouble themselves with involvement in our daily living? For certain, we should love them and show them that love, perhaps even more than we would if they were not ill. But wouldn't it also be a comfort to them if they were encouraged to join the rest of us in doing what we normally do. Wouldn't it be a comfort to be a part of humanity rather than a pampered outcast, ultimately alone in knowing they will soon be dead?

Yeah, I have reason not to trust your metaphors.

If Trump gets in, might be more than stains on a blue dress. He might not be the "white Bill Cosby" of corporate America (very long line ahead of him I'm sure), but clearly he has alienated a large majority of the women voters. Both fit the statement, power corrupts absolutely.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah, but if he gets in, and has to step down, Pence would be President. In my view, a better outcome than if power hungry therefor absolutely corrupted person gets in.

Why hasn't Bill Clinton alienated at least as many women voters? By what logic does a liberal still support Bill Clinton (he remains enormously popular with liberals) and bash Trump for his treatment of women?

Hilary, for decades, has enabled her husband's predation, denied that it existed, and attacked the character of his victims, referring top them as "looney tunes", "bimbo", and "trailer trash".

I don't see how the party that worships at the feet of the Kennedys and the Clintons, has the chutzpah to claim the moral high ground on feminism. What kind of feminist, exactly, marries Bill Clinton?

Unless someone can explain to me why Bill deserves a pass while Trump is labeled sexist, I will chalk it up to one (of many) example of liberal hypocrisy, made possible by their partners in the media.