No, it's not. Trump defeated 16 other candidates, fair and square. Most of them just as or more accomplished than him. The same goes for Clinton. That nobody except the crazy Bernie, decided to run against her was because of the consensus on the left that it was her turn. You should look up the editorial positions on the Democratic prospects from couple of years ago. Clinton's candidacy was considered a done deal and a gold standard. Hence, the superdelegates from day one. So, don't tell me now, just because your candidate is imploding, that this is a b-list election. It's a miserable excuse for the lack of vision.Answer: this is a b-list election. Nobody likes any of the candidates.
Voters don't like - they LOVE Trump and Bernie.Answer: this is a b-list election. Nobody likes any of the candidates.
He doesn't seem to have it. Not in cash. Not unless he starts divesting major assets and so far he hasn't given any indication he will do that.In addition to raising money with large donors, I would want to see Trump personally put up $500 - $1 billion of his own money. He needs to show that level of skin in the game.
He is a pathological liar - there is a question if his habitual lying is the result of his arrogant narcissistic personality. How can you cherry pick his statements when he continually contradicts himself ? He intentionally targets the lower echelon levels of society with bigoted, racists statements intended to solicit votes from the KKK, etc.I don't understand what is people's problem with Trump.
Better than a Neo Con faking as a progressive Democrat who has endorsed and voted for legislation, endorsed measures that have result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the displacement of millions. Who endorsed legislation that results in the incarceration of thousands of US citizens. Who has used her place in gov't to enrich herself at the expense of others. Who stood by and let an Ambassador die and lied about it.He is a pathological liar - there is a question if his habitual lying is the result of his arrogant narcissistic personality. How can you cherry pick his statements when he continually contradicts himself ? He intentionally targets the lower echelon levels of society with bigoted, racists statements intended to solicit votes from the KKK, etc.
His continual reverses and lies make for good comedy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpKiP_gmDS8 (Trump debates himself)
A liar, a narcissist, insecurity copmplex ... why would any intelligent person want these qualities in a president of the world's most powerful country ??
Must be true if it come's from Grumpy Trumps advisor.A succinct indictment of Clinton:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...clinton_is_not_qualified_to_be_president.html
Electing her would be national suicide.
Are you saying it isn't true that she voted for the Iraq war? That she led the charge to destabilize Libya? That she was part of the same in Syria?Must be true if it come's from Grumpy Trumps advisor.![]()
Are you saying the invasion of Iraq was wrong or that the West shouldn't have assisted the Syrian rebels?Are you saying it isn't true that she voted for the Iraq war? That she led the charge to destabilize Libya? That she was part of the same in Syria?
Curious if you consider these actions the core values associated with the Democratic Party?
The invasion of Iraq part 1 and part 2 were both wrong.Are you saying the invasion of Iraq was wrong or that the West shouldn't have assisted the Syrian rebels?
They were both well justified. The problem with 1 was they didn't finish the job. There was no problem with 2. There was a botched reconstruction effort AFTER 2. Still s better outcome today than had Saddam been left there.The invasion of Iraq part 1 and part 2 were both wrong.
The West has had fuck all to do with the Syrian war. Very limited involvement and hardly any impactThe west should have left Syria alone and let Assad do what he wanted.
Yeah, but fuji, you can already hear Donald Trump on how he will attack Hillary on this.They were both well justified. The problem with 1 was they didn't finish the job. There was no problem with 2. There was a botched reconstruction effort AFTER 2. Still s better outcome today than had Saddam been left there.
This is a matter of interpretation, as the facts on the ground kind of fuzzy in Syria, but from what I remember the USA was involved in a big way.The West has had fuck all to do with the Syrian war. Very limited involvement and hardly any impact
Yes. I have consider the war wrong. It was sold with lies. There was no reason for it. And it was horribly executed. Easy to beat a third world nation with the American Military. Totally botched everything after the first 10 days.Are you saying the invasion of Iraq was wrong or that the West shouldn't have assisted the Syrian rebels?
Why? Like Ghadafi he was contained and neutered. And was keeping the sects in check. Now we have hundreds of thousands dead, wounded.There was an excellent reason for the iraq war. Saddam needed to go.
Why? Like Ghadafi he was contained and neutered. And was keeping the sects in check. Now we have hundreds of thousands dead, wounded.There was an excellent reason for the iraq war. Saddam needed to go.