Donald trump. what is your take on him?

[JohnRoberts]

Are you saying she doesn't have experience? You understand there's a difference between her having experience and you agreeing with her decisions, yes?

I understand just fine. 

So you agree that she's worked in government with issues of national security whereas Trump has not?

AFAIK Trump has not violated government procedure for handling confidnetial government documents.

You agree that taking part in the decision to capture or kill Bin Laden,

Finding OBL was the result of years of rigorous search and intelligence gathering. She doesn't seem handy with secret documents.

Since you bring up the decision "to capture or kill" OBL, I kind of would liked to ask OBL a few questions before snuffing out his light. And what's with burying him at sea..? Trying not to offend who exactly? He was a mass murderer.   

the mastermind of 9/11, the biggest terrorist attack on US soil in modern history, is experience in issues of national security, yes?

And what exactly did she have to do with that, besides being present for the victory lap after seals took him out?

Ask her husband Bill why he didn't take the cruise missle shot on OBL when he had an opportunity while he was President? Might have prevented 9/11 (pure specualtion of course).

Her record in the senate and as secretary of state does not inspire confidence. The leading from behind removal of Gadaffi in Libya is now requiring a re-engagement to supress ISIS gaining more strenght there. Gadaffi had already abandoned his WMD program. Now we have another under-governed region for ISIS to corrupt.

Her responsibility to protect our ambassador there (chris stevens)  after he came under attack, reminds me of her old political ad  when she was running against Obama and asked "who do we want to take the call when the red phone rings in the middle of the night." Apparently not her. In real life the people calling her for help get left to fend for themselves. 

This is an ugly contest between two very ugly candidates. Voters must decide who they dislike the least.  Kind of sad,,,

JR

PS: I had a secret government securtity clearance back in the 60's, doesn't exactly make me WH material, but i'd still be better than those two jokers [edit]  nah [/edit]. 

You ever wonder why there are two jokers in a deck of cards? Now we know.

 

[kambo]

AFAIK Trump has not violated government procedure for handling confidnetial government documents.

i am kind a busy at work but... thats a super void statement...
mr Trump never had access to confidential government documents!
making a comparison is even more void  8)

edit: i am sure  u know i am not a Hillary fun at all....

 

[pucho812]

Are you saying she doesn't have experience? You understand there's a difference between her having experience and you agreeing with her decisions, yes?

I understand just fine. 

So you agree that she's worked in government with issues of national security whereas Trump has not?

You agree that taking part in the decision to capture or kill Bin Laden, the mastermind of 9/11, the biggest terrorist attack on US soil in modern history, is experience in issues of national security, yes?

wow, you misunderstood what I said I understood. you ask if I understood the difference of experience vs not agreeing with her decisions.  to which I said yes I understand the difference between the two. then made remarks on her experience and what it qualifies her for. 

 

[CJ]

which candidate would ensure the continuous flow of high quality russian vacuum tubes into the US?

 

[DaveP]

which candidate would ensure the continuous flow of high quality russian vacuum tubes into the US?

Yeah, that would be the only positive in the worst choice the US has had in living memory.

On the voting card, there should be three boxes, Clinton, Trump and None of the above.

DaveP

 

[mattiasNYC]

Are you saying she doesn't have experience? You understand there's a difference between her having experience and you agreeing with her decisions, yes?

I understand just fine. 

So you agree that she's worked in government with issues of national security whereas Trump has not?

AFAIK Trump has not violated government procedure for handling confidnetial government documents.

You agree that taking part in the decision to capture or kill Bin Laden,

Finding OBL was the result of years of rigorous search and intelligence gathering. She doesn't seem handy with secret documents.

Since you bring up the decision "to capture or kill" OBL, I kind of would liked to ask OBL a few questions before snuffing out his light. And what's with burying him at sea..? Trying not to offend who exactly? He was a mass murderer.   

the mastermind of 9/11, the biggest terrorist attack on US soil in modern history, is experience in issues of national security, yes?

And what exactly did she have to do with that, besides being present for the victory lap after seals took him out?

Ask her husband Bill why he didn't take the cruise missle shot on OBL when he had an opportunity while he was President? Might have prevented 9/11 (pure specualtion of course).

Her record in the senate and as secretary of state does not inspire confidence. The leading from behind removal of Gadaffi in Libya is now requiring a re-engagement to supress ISIS gaining more strenght there. Gadaffi had already abandoned his WMD program. Now we have another under-governed region for ISIS to corrupt.

Her responsibility to protect our ambassador there (chris stevens)  after he came under attack, reminds me of her old political ad  when she was running against Obama and asked "who do we want to take the call when the red phone rings in the middle of the night." Apparently not her. In real life the people calling her for help get left to fend for themselves. 

This is an ugly contest between two very ugly candidates. Voters must decide who they dislike the least.  Kind of sad,,,

JR

PS: I had a secret government securtity clearance back in the 60's, doesn't exactly make me WH material, but i'd still be better than those two jokers. 

You ever wonder why there are two jokers in a deck of cards? Now we know.

John, does any of the above prove that she does NOT have national security experience?

 

[mattiasNYC]

Are you saying she doesn't have experience? You understand there's a difference between her having experience and you agreeing with her decisions, yes?

I understand just fine. 

So you agree that she's worked in government with issues of national security whereas Trump has not?

You agree that taking part in the decision to capture or kill Bin Laden, the mastermind of 9/11, the biggest terrorist attack on US soil in modern history, is experience in issues of national security, yes?

wow, you misunderstood what I said I understood. you ask if I understood the difference of experience vs not agreeing with her decisions.  to which I said yes I understand the difference between the two. then made remarks on her experience and what it qualifies her for.

I didn't misunderstand anything, I'm just trying to get you to accept that despite what you think of her decisions she has had experience with these issues and Trump has not. But the very first thing you wrote on the topic was:

clinton has experience on national security?  coffee just went out my nose...

which made it seem like you thought she hadn't.

 

[JohnRoberts]

AFAIK Trump has not violated government procedure for handling confidnetial government documents.

i am kind a busy at work but... thats a super void statement...
mr Trump never had access to confidential government documents!
making a comparison is even more void  8)

edit: i am sure  u know i am not a Hillary fun at all....

Actually Trump,  Clinton and both VP candidates will receive national security intelligence briefings, that surely contain confidential information.  (Harry Reid has suggested giving Trump false information, but Harry Reid is like that, and not known as a beacon of truth himself).

Hillary has already demonstrated enough negligence in handling such confidential and secret government documents that she wouldn't be allowed in the same room with them if she wasn't already part of the political elite (Comey said as much but not in those words).

Trump's ability to keep a secret will surely be tested, his speaking style does not invole any self-editing, so he will be sorely tempted to talk about this. 

Interesting times.

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

Are you saying she doesn't have experience? You understand there's a difference between her having experience and you agreeing with her decisions, yes?

I understand just fine. 

So you agree that she's worked in government with issues of national security whereas Trump has not?

AFAIK Trump has not violated government procedure for handling confidnetial government documents.

You agree that taking part in the decision to capture or kill Bin Laden,

Finding OBL was the result of years of rigorous search and intelligence gathering. She doesn't seem handy with secret documents.

Since you bring up the decision "to capture or kill" OBL, I kind of would liked to ask OBL a few questions before snuffing out his light. And what's with burying him at sea..? Trying not to offend who exactly? He was a mass murderer.   

the mastermind of 9/11, the biggest terrorist attack on US soil in modern history, is experience in issues of national security, yes?

And what exactly did she have to do with that, besides being present for the victory lap after seals took him out?

Ask her husband Bill why he didn't take the cruise missle shot on OBL when he had an opportunity while he was President? Might have prevented 9/11 (pure specualtion of course).

Her record in the senate and as secretary of state does not inspire confidence. The leading from behind removal of Gadaffi in Libya is now requiring a re-engagement to supress ISIS gaining more strenght there. Gadaffi had already abandoned his WMD program. Now we have another under-governed region for ISIS to corrupt.

Her responsibility to protect our ambassador there (chris stevens)  after he came under attack, reminds me of her old political ad  when she was running against Obama and asked "who do we want to take the call when the red phone rings in the middle of the night." Apparently not her. In real life the people calling her for help get left to fend for themselves. 

This is an ugly contest between two very ugly candidates. Voters must decide who they dislike the least.  Kind of sad,,,

JR

PS: I had a secret government securtity clearance back in the 60's, doesn't exactly make me WH material, but i'd still be better than those two jokers. 

You ever wonder why there are two jokers in a deck of cards? Now we know.

John, does any of the above prove that she does NOT have national security experience?

The central question is whether that experience was a positive or negative for the country.  Some argue it is evidence for why she shouldn't be elected.

JR

PS: I really do not want to advocate for either of these two jokers but one seems worse than the other IMO.  As I said already this year both sides will be voting against the other candidate, not for thiers. 

 

[mattiasNYC]

The central question is whether that experience was a positive or negative for the country.  Some argue it is evidence for why she shouldn't be elected.

Of course. 9/11 happened on W's watch, so I suppose he shouldn't have gotten a second term then, correct? We've been safer, arguably, under Obama. At the very least fewer Americans have died on US soil at the hands of terrorists, and he's started fewer wars in which Americans were subsequently killed.

If the issue is the emails then the other argument would be that regardless of whether she was negligent or arrogant or both she'll probably think twice about how she'll manage information as POTUS. She's definitely intelligent enough to learn from her mistakes is my guess.

PS: I really do not want to advocate for either of these two jokers but one seems worse than the other IMO.

And given the character traits of Trump that we've seen so far he's far worse. Add to that zero experience in government, and questionable experience in business as far as actually creating something other than a reputation/brand....

 

[JohnRoberts]

The central question is whether that experience was a positive or negative for the country.  Some argue it is evidence for why she shouldn't be elected.

Of course. 9/11 happened on W's watch, so I suppose he shouldn't have gotten a second term then, correct? We've been safer, arguably, under Obama. At the very least fewer Americans have died on US soil at the hands of terrorists, and he's started fewer wars in which Americans were subsequently killed.

Arguably it was a failure of previous administrations too. 9/11 was not even the first attempt to bring down the WTC. They attacked it earlier with a truck bomb (1993) but only destroyed one of the support columns.  As i mentioned Clinton didn't take the shot when he had it on OBL that could have changed this historical time line. But arguing hypotheticals about the past that could never happen is worse than hypotheticals about the future that could.

If the issue is the emails then the other argument would be that regardless of whether she was negligent or arrogant or both she'll probably think twice about how she'll manage information as POTUS. She's definitely intelligent enough to learn from her mistakes is my guess.

Ask yourself why she set up the private mail server? She has been running for POTUS since before Bill retired. The private email server was a calculated effort to control or prevent information about her government activity from being revealed to the public.  She wanted to tightly manage this information because she apparently believed it could be damaging to her if not controlled by her alone.

Ironicaly her effort to keep her emails secret has probably handed it to hackers from other government security agencies.  The DNC emails were leaked, when they were leaked for maximum political impact. (Russia has been known to interfere with other countries politics). 

There is much speculation about what may be found in the still missing emails. The FBI turned over thousands of work related emails to the state department that she didn't return when she was supposed to.  (Hint: one october surprise may be another email dump, that will be more effective later than now).   

PS: I really do not want to advocate for either of these two jokers but one seems worse than the other IMO.

And given the character traits of Trump that we've seen so far he's far worse. Add to that zero experience in government, and questionable experience in business as far as actually creating something other than a reputation/brand....

Politics is the ultimate branding experience. FWIW I favor term limits because I believe political experience has a corrupting influence.

This is the old political ink blot test... which is worse a blowhard property developer or a career politician who has a problem telling the truth.

Pick your personal poison.

JR 

 

[living sounds]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/opinion/sunday/clintons-fibs-vs-trumps-huge-lies.html?_r=0

 

[mattiasNYC]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/opinion/sunday/clintons-fibs-vs-trumps-huge-lies.html?_r=0

A lot of Americans will never care about that. To have a president that just says whatever he feels like regardless of whether it's true or false means that you have no idea what you're voting for. As much as I dislike Hillary there's something known about her. I'd rather see a relatively predictable politician with the finger on the button than a narcissistic pathological liar.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Arguably it was a failure of previous administrations too. 9/11 was not even the first attempt to bring down the WTC. They attacked it earlier with a truck bomb (1993) but only destroyed one of the support columns.  As i mentioned Clinton didn't take the shot when he had it on OBL that could have changed this historical time line. But arguing hypotheticals about the past that could never happen is worse than hypotheticals about the future that could.

But the point was indeed a "retroactive hypothetical about the future". If Hillary is unfit because of relatively minor things that happened on her watch then W was far more unfit because of 9/11, and didn't deserve a second term. And if W did deserve a second term despite OBL causing 9/11 then clearly Hillary deserves a shot after having taking part in the decision to capture or kill him.

Isn't that entirely logical?

Ask yourself why she set up the private mail server? She has been running for POTUS since before Bill retired. The private email server was a calculated effort to control or prevent information about her government activity from being revealed to the public. 

I would have thought that any email to/from her would have been duplicated on the sender/receviers servers as well. So I don't see how she'd have had absolute control over correspondence. Or perhaps I'm missing something technically.

Politics is the ultimate branding experience.

In this case we can see that Trump is saying whatever he wants whenever he wants in order to get whatever results he wants from the audience. So we really have no idea what he stands for.

which is worse a blowhard property developer or a career politician who has a problem telling the truth.

Pick your personal poison.

JR

I will agree with the previously linked-to article that Trump is FAR worse a liar. More lies. More blatant lying. People don't care. Because of the branding I suppose. And because the US is so partisan.

 

[dmp]

The arguments against Hillary are pretty weak when looked at on there own merits. She's not the first to have an email scandal (the Bush/Rove server was arguably worse) and the Benghazi criticism is really about poor funding for security (i.e. congress, not Clinton). I haven't seen any credible argument that anything could have been done differently in the immediate aftermath to change the course of events. 
But I think some people hate her so much that rational thinking doesn't matter. The diatribe I heard against her last week on right wing public radio was over the top. I can see if one listens to that and has drunk the cool aid, she would seem like the devil incarnate.
She's actually a decent person, not the best politician, but someone trying to make the best decisions for the public good. Based on the facts.  I can't say the same about Trump.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Arguably it was a failure of previous administrations too. 9/11 was not even the first attempt to bring down the WTC. They attacked it earlier with a truck bomb (1993) but only destroyed one of the support columns.  As i mentioned Clinton didn't take the shot when he had it on OBL that could have changed this historical time line. But arguing hypotheticals about the past that could never happen is worse than hypotheticals about the future that could.

But the point was indeed a "retroactive hypothetical about the future". If Hillary is unfit because of relatively minor things that happened on her watch then W was far more unfit because of 9/11, and didn't deserve a second term. And if W did deserve a second term despite OBL causing 9/11 then clearly Hillary deserves a shot after having taking part in the decision to capture or kill him.

Isn't that entirely logical?

Kind of convoluted...  What was so difficult about deciding to go after OBL?

The Omama adminstration looks at all decisions through a political filter and this one was pretty easy.  Are you implying some other internal decision making related to "capture or kill" verbiage?

Ask yourself why she set up the private mail server? She has been running for POTUS since before Bill retired. The private email server was a calculated effort to control or prevent information about her government activity from being revealed to the public. 

I would have thought that any email to/from her would have been duplicated on the sender/receviers servers as well. So I don't see how she'd have had absolute control over correspondence. Or perhaps I'm missing something technically.

She has been working in government long enough to know that government communications are public property that can be subpoenaed. She wanted to gain more control over her personal communications.  The excuse that she did this for personal convenience is not believable (IMO). The elephant in the room is the Clinton Foundation and possibility that the state department decisions were influenced by contributions to the foundation. So far these are just unproved allegations, her full email record would go a long way toward dispelling all suspicion. 

Yes, every email should have two copies, one at the sender and one at the recipient. I expect more emails to be revealed over time, from hacks and/or investigations of known associates. A number of emails have been recovered from recipients.

It is kind or remarkable how succesful the IRS has been (so far) about supressing evidence like erasing back up tapes holding Lois Lerner's subpoenaed emails and claiming her computer crashed.

Politics is the ultimate branding experience.

In this case we can see that Trump is saying whatever he wants whenever he wants in order to get whatever results he wants from the audience. So we really have no idea what he stands for.

which is worse a blowhard property developer or a career politician who has a problem telling the truth.

Pick your personal poison.

JR

I will agree with the previously linked-to article that Trump is FAR worse a liar. More lies. More blatant lying. People don't care. Because of the branding I suppose. And because the US is so partisan.

And Hillary is just a "normal" political liar, while Trump is a blowhard realestate developer liar.

I will agree they are both liars.

JR

 

[micaddict]

Pick your personal poison.

Seeems there's a third poison in the works.

 

[JohnRoberts]

The arguments against Hillary are pretty weak when looked at on there own merits. She's not the first to have an email scandal (the Bush/Rove server was arguably worse)

I don't know about worse, but wrong and the same intent, to avoid public scrutiny of communications related to government business. So she was just copying an illegal Bush strategy. 

and the Benghazi criticism is really about poor funding for security (i.e. congress, not Clinton). I haven't seen any credible argument that anything could have been done differently in the immediate aftermath to change the course of events. 

Chris Stevens was a cowboy and put himself at risk by staying in benghazi after other countries had already pulled out their personell.

What bothers me most about Benghazi is how dishonestly political the aftermath was managed. Hillary told Chelsea privately hours after the attack that it was terrorism, while publicly pushing the administration story that it was a spontaneous protest response to an inflammatory video. Arguably she was just being a good soldier pushing the administration's dishonest political messaging. Susan Rice was trotted out to the Sunday talk shows to push the same fiction.  Reportedly the parents of soldiers killed in Benghazi were told the spun video protest version in Dover when the bodies were returned to US soil, and now Hillary claims the distraught mother has misremembered what she said back then.  Probably something lawyerly like "we're going to get that film maker who caused this".  The film maker is still in prison being held on an unrelated charge (probation violation).  Perhaps President Obama can pardon him... he has already commuted the sentences of more criminals than the last 9 presidents combined, and is just getting warmed up.

But I think some people hate her so much that rational thinking doesn't matter. The diatribe I heard against her last week on right wing public radio was over the top. I can see if one listens to that and has drunk the cool aid, she would seem like the devil incarnate.

Good thing I don't watch/listen to that stuff. My head would explode. I don't hate her, just what I expect her to do if elected.

She's actually a decent person, not the best politician, but someone trying to make the best decisions for the public good. Based on the facts.  I can't say the same about Trump.

My concern about a Hillary administration is the likelihood for more of the same Obama policy, with the opportunity to appoint 2 or 3 liberal SCOTUS justices which will influence the court for decades.  The only good thing about a Trump presidency is that he is not Hillary, so would not continue this path.

Hillary is indeed a conventional politician so more predictable. She would probably be better for my stock market holdings, but IMO not better for the country.  Trump is a loose cannon expected to blow up the business as usual crony/political establishment. I think inside the beltway needs a good flush.

Hillary will probably win if no new smoking guns emerge... Trump is his own worst enemy talking without thinking, and constantly distracting the public from his own campaign message. He may be operating under the principal that all publicity is good. Today he is scheduled to give his economic policy speech and pundits are already predicting economic collapse.

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

Pick your personal poison.

Seeems there's a third poison in the works.

Generally there are only two jokers in the deck....

Third party candidates will draw votes from both sides...

If nobody wins it goes to the house to decide, now that would be interesting.

JR

 

[mattiasNYC]

Arguably it was a failure of previous administrations too. 9/11 was not even the first attempt to bring down the WTC. They attacked it earlier with a truck bomb (1993) but only destroyed one of the support columns.  As i mentioned Clinton didn't take the shot when he had it on OBL that could have changed this historical time line. But arguing hypotheticals about the past that could never happen is worse than hypotheticals about the future that could.

But the point was indeed a "retroactive hypothetical about the future". If Hillary is unfit because of relatively minor things that happened on her watch then W was far more unfit because of 9/11, and didn't deserve a second term. And if W did deserve a second term despite OBL causing 9/11 then clearly Hillary deserves a shot after having taking part in the decision to capture or kill him.

Isn't that entirely logical?

Kind of convoluted...  What was so difficult about deciding to go after OBL?

The Omama adminstration looks at all decisions through a political filter and this one was pretty easy.  Are you implying some other internal decision making related to "capture or kill" verbiage?

Did you read the article I linked to?

The question that was raised was about Hillary's national security experience's value. I'm saying she has the experience and Trump doesn't, at all. It was then implied that her experience doesn't qualify her for anything, and I was simply juxtaposing that to the experience of prior presidents. You can include Bill if you want, it's really beside the point. If Bill and George were both qualified for duty AFTER their neglect, then I don't see anything Hillary has done or not done that outdoes those blunders, and she should therefore be equally qualified based on the same line of thinking.

Yes, every email should have two copies, one at the sender and one at the recipient.

And that's why the notion that she did it to have control over her emails doesn't sound reasonable.

I will agree with the previously linked-to article that Trump is FAR worse a liar. More lies. More blatant lying. People don't care. Because of the branding I suppose. And because the US is so partisan.

And Hillary is just a "normal" political liar, while Trump is a blowhard realestate developer liar.

I will agree they are both liars.

JR

In other words: You either didn't read the article, or you ignore the frequency and magnitude of the lies being told when it comes to Trump.

So, to reiterate: Many Americans don't care about his lies.