OT: The next President of the United States: ★★★ Donald Trump ★★★

[TheSuzerain]

Says the guy when I talk about voter fraud, goes and finds an eight year old quote of something Obama said to try and prove that "Democrats believe in voter fraud" when in actuality, BOTH Democrats and Republicans in recent weeks have come out and said that the need for voter ID to "protect" against voter fraud is essentially a Republican voter suppression tactic.

Second, explain to me why Obama's own quote is somehow now off limits. Was he lying then? What voter fraud existed pre-2008 that justified Obama's comments? And what has been done to get rid of those problems? And finally, where was the national outcry about Obama attacking the sanctity and fairness of the election process?

Nobody has touched the bolded point above. While the response will be predictable, I think this is a valid question that deserves to have a reply.

Because Obama didn't make it a central part of his campaign.

A throwaway line in a stump speech is not comparable to Trump outright saying he won't accept a Hilary victory in the election.

The Voter ID is just flatly a partisan issue. Republicans support it because it would reduce Democratic turnout. Democrats oppose it because it would reduce Democratic turnout. It's frankly a waste of time to debate the merits of it beyond that.

There are 100s of things more important to talk about in policy/politics.

[dice]

where'd you pull that one from? breitbart?

This is exactly what I mean by "willfull denial". P-S-Y-C-H-O-P-A-T-H.

F-A-L-S-E-H-O-O-D-S

this is hardly the primary example why I think Hillary is one of the worst candidates in the history of the country. The reason is C-O-R-R-U-P-T-I-O-N or what some people call crony-capitalism.

i take it you haven't voted for any presidential nominee in recent history then. because she isn't engaging in any thing that anyone else hasn't. maybe to a greater degree, but c'mon. where was the righteous indignation before?

You mentioned use of military force, so I responded that psychotic Hillary is far more likely to use military force in a frivolous manner than Trump.

D-E-L-U-S-I-O-N-A-L

again, who are you getting the "psychotic" nonsense from? reveal your loathsome sources. same folks that call obama a kenyan marxist? sure sounds like it

i don't even think she's great. so you're dealing in bald-faced lies at this point

i'm a fan of the truth. you seem to be a fan of gross hyperbole and outright fabrication

Man of truth? LOL. When you ignore everything that doesn't fit your agenda that's not "truth".

are you going to tell me what i have ignored, or is that a secret to be revealed after the election?

oh, maybe i'm not playing this trump-like twitter war correctly...i'll add a *roflcopter*

So enlighten us - what do you think about Hillary? Do you think she's honest? non-corrupt? Why are you voting for her (other than the party she belongs to)?

i don't give a good god damn about party. i care about results. and i see hillary being more or (probably) less an extension of what obama has done. bernie sanders thinks she'll go further. i am very skeptical. not that she doesn't want to, but i don't see her being able to. for christ's sake, we now have a group of republicans, including the formerly respectable john mccain, saying they won't confirm ANY supreme court justice she nominates. hard to do much of anything under the laws of the land when one party refuses to even participate. but simply four or more years of status quo is better than the enormous risk taken by letting a guy who pretty clearly LEGITIMATELY has mental disorders take the reigns. and that, sir, is why i am voting for hillary clinton (a woman who, by the way, has been a big part of why millions of americans have health insurance that otherwise would and who will attempt to raise taxes on the wealthy. i'm not sure which capitalists she's cronying up to there, but perhaps you can enlighten me. non-breitbart source please)

[dice]

Says the guy when I talk about voter fraud, goes and finds an eight year old quote of something Obama said to try and prove that "Democrats believe in voter fraud" when in actuality, BOTH Democrats and Republicans in recent weeks have come out and said that the need for voter ID to "protect" against voter fraud is essentially a Republican voter suppression tactic.

Second, explain to me why Obama's own quote is somehow now off limits. Was he lying then? What voter fraud existed pre-2008 that justified Obama's comments? And what has been done to get rid of those problems? And finally, where was the national outcry about Obama attacking the sanctity and fairness of the election process?

Nobody has touched the bolded point above. While the response will be predictable, I think this is a valid question that deserves to have a reply.

why would there be an outcry about expressing concern about voting machine issues or vote counting issues that actually HAVE existed (bush-kerry ohio, bush-gore florida...ring a bell?)? as opposed to the problem of people casting fraudulent votes, which, er...isn't actually a problem at all

[dice]

The Voter ID is just flatly a partisan issue. Republicans support it because it would reduce Democratic turnout. Democrats oppose it because it would reduce Democratic turnout. It's frankly a waste of time to debate the merits of it beyond that.

sure. the measures being taken are also blatantly unfair as well, though. whether the democrats are accidentally on the correct side of the issue or not is perfectly fair to question. whether voter suppression is a good thing is not up for debate though

[Bascitball]

no. i'm a rational human being

obama is not a secret muslim either. nor foreign born. and the government did not plot and carry out the 9/11 attacks

The bold part is not nice. I never said any of that. Please don't imply what I believe.

Edit: trying to be nice.

i didn't imply that at all. i'm implying that your theory has about as much rational merit as any of the other conspiracy theories i mentioned (and, frankly, nearly all prominent conspiracy theories). all are absurd suggestions

So you don't agree with Hillary's quote: "The great story here, for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it, is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president."

She went on to add this (this quote is from Feb of this year): "At this point it's probably not correct to say it's a conspiracy because it's out in the open," Clinton said. "There is no doubt about who the players are, what they're trying to achieve... It's real, and we're going to beat it."

If we're being honest, both sides jockey for any advantage they can get (no duh, right?). It's not really a conspiracy, it's political strategy. Each side has strategies they are more effective with than the other side. Most people agree that the Left uses the media more effectively (to put it gently).

Is it really that unreasonable to conclude that media types would engage in politically timing articles rather than just reporting their findings immediately? You don't think they have meetings to decide on when/how to drop certain news (as long as they aren't in fear of being scooped by competition)? The media collusion with Hillary's staff during primary season probably cost the Left the chance at real change because Bernie got screwed. (See evidence - journalists sending articles to Hillary's staff for review and suggestions before publishing, feeding questions to Hillary before debates and so on.) So to quote Hillary: "There is no doubt about who the players are, what they're trying to achieve... It's real, and we're going to beat it." Except I have no confidence that it will be beaten.

So yes, I believe in this "conspiracy." But no more than Hillary also believes in "conspiracies."

Side note: It is sad that this post comes across as partisan fighting because I fully believe that the PEOPLE need to come together and demand change in Washington. Both parties have us on the ropes (by design), and there's a ton of more important stuff that we all agree on.

[TeK]

where'd you pull that one from? breitbart?

This is exactly what I mean by "willfull denial". P-S-Y-C-H-O-P-A-T-H.

F-A-L-S-E-H-O-O-D-S

this is hardly the primary example why I think Hillary is one of the worst candidates in the history of the country. The reason is C-O-R-R-U-P-T-I-O-N or what some people call crony-capitalism.

i take it you haven't voted for any presidential nominee in recent history then. because she isn't engaging in any thing that anyone else hasn't. maybe to a greater degree, but c'mon. where was the righteous indignation before?

You mentioned use of military force, so I responded that psychotic Hillary is far more likely to use military force in a frivolous manner than Trump.

D-E-L-U-S-I-O-N-A-L

again, who are you getting the "psychotic" nonsense from? reveal your loathsome sources. same folks that call obama a kenyan marxist? sure sounds like it

i don't even think she's great. so you're dealing in bald-faced lies at this point

i'm a fan of the truth. you seem to be a fan of gross hyperbole and outright fabrication

Man of truth? LOL. When you ignore everything that doesn't fit your agenda that's not "truth".

are you going to tell me what i have ignored, or is that a secret to be revealed after the election?

oh, maybe i'm not playing this trump-like twitter war correctly...i'll add a *roflcopter*

So enlighten us - what do you think about Hillary? Do you think she's honest? non-corrupt? Why are you voting for her (other than the party she belongs to)?

i don't give a good god damn about party. i care about results. and i see hillary being more or (probably) less an extension of what obama has done. bernie sanders thinks she'll go further. i am very skeptical. not that she doesn't want to, but i don't see her being able to. for christ's sake, we now have a group of republicans, including the formerly respectable john mccain, saying they won't confirm ANY supreme court justice she nominates. hard to do much of anything under the laws of the land when one party refuses to even participate. but simply four or more years of status quo is better than the enormous risk taken by letting a guy who pretty clearly LEGITIMATELY has mental disorders take the reigns. and that, sir, is why i am voting for hillary clinton (a woman who, by the way, has been a big part of why millions of americans have health insurance that otherwise would and who will attempt to raise taxes on the wealthy. i'm not sure which capitalists she's cronying up to there, but perhaps you can enlighten me. non-breitbart source please)

So do you support the positions he holds privately, or the positions she lies about publically?

You mention you are supporting the upkeep of the status quo. That you don't want to elect a man with a mental disorder. May I ask what even led you to that conclusion? Everything Trump has said has thus far turned out to be accurate, even when there was massive backlash initially.

I'm just curious as to what bad you see in the Rep candidate that would make you vote for the Dem one?

[AKfanatic]

Spoiler:

This is exactly what I mean by "willfull denial". P-S-Y-C-H-O-P-A-T-H.

F-A-L-S-E-H-O-O-D-S

this is hardly the primary example why I think Hillary is one of the worst candidates in the history of the country. The reason is C-O-R-R-U-P-T-I-O-N or what some people call crony-capitalism.

i take it you haven't voted for any presidential nominee in recent history then. because she isn't engaging in any thing that anyone else hasn't. maybe to a greater degree, but c'mon. where was the righteous indignation before?

You mentioned use of military force, so I responded that psychotic Hillary is far more likely to use military force in a frivolous manner than Trump.

D-E-L-U-S-I-O-N-A-L

again, who are you getting the "psychotic" nonsense from? reveal your loathsome sources. same folks that call obama a kenyan marxist? sure sounds like it

Man of truth? LOL. When you ignore everything that doesn't fit your agenda that's not "truth".

are you going to tell me what i have ignored, or is that a secret to be revealed after the election?

oh, maybe i'm not playing this trump-like twitter war correctly...i'll add a *roflcopter*

So enlighten us - what do you think about Hillary? Do you think she's honest? non-corrupt? Why are you voting for her (other than the party she belongs to)?

i don't give a good god damn about party. i care about results. and i see hillary being more or (probably) less an extension of what obama has done. bernie sanders thinks she'll go further. i am very skeptical. not that she doesn't want to, but i don't see her being able to. for christ's sake, we now have a group of republicans, including the formerly respectable john mccain, saying they won't confirm ANY supreme court justice she nominates. hard to do much of anything under the laws of the land when one party refuses to even participate. but simply four or more years of status quo is better than the enormous risk taken by letting a guy who pretty clearly LEGITIMATELY has mental disorders take the reigns. and that, sir, is why i am voting for hillary clinton (a woman who, by the way, has been a big part of why millions of americans have health insurance that otherwise would and who will attempt to raise taxes on the wealthy. i'm not sure which capitalists she's cronying up to there, but perhaps you can enlighten me. non-breitbart source please)

So do you support the positions he holds privately, or the positions she lies about publically?

You mention you are supporting the upkeep of the status quo. That you don't want to elect a man with a mental disorder. May I ask what even led you to that conclusion? Everything Trump has said has thus far turned out to be accurate, even when there was massive backlash initially.

I'm just curious as to what bad you see in the Rep candidate that would make you vote for the Dem one?

Heh

[Bascitball]

Second, explain to me why Obama's own quote is somehow now off limits. Was he lying then? What voter fraud existed pre-2008 that justified Obama's comments? And what has been done to get rid of those problems? And finally, where was the national outcry about Obama attacking the sanctity and fairness of the election process?

Nobody has touched the bolded point above. While the response will be predictable, I think this is a valid question that deserves to have a reply.

why would there be an outcry about expressing concern about voting machine issues or vote counting issues that actually HAVE existed (bush-kerry ohio, bush-gore florida...ring a bell?)? as opposed to the problem of people casting fraudulent votes, which, er...isn't actually a problem at all

So why would a person agree, in advance, to accepting the outcome of an election when such issues have caused concern in the recent past? (I agree that he should've just said, "barring an unforeseen situation - I will absolutely accept the will of the people.")

I believe that Trump is a businessman and doesn't see value in accepting these terms. However, in this case, he's wrong. The benefit of just agreeing far outweigh the backlash - and he should know better (even if he has his doubts).

[DuckIII]

Why are you guys even bothering arguing with Trump supporters at this point?

[DanTown8587]

Says the guy when I talk about voter fraud, goes and finds an eight year old quote of something Obama said to try and prove that "Democrats believe in voter fraud" when in actuality, BOTH Democrats and Republicans in recent weeks have come out and said that the need for voter ID to "protect" against voter fraud is essentially a Republican voter suppression tactic.

First, given your response, I don't think you understand what partisan means. Quite ironic.

I understand what partisan means; you simply don't have the information to make that basis. You know my opinion on ONE issue (two if you want to use my beliefs against Trump) partisan beliefs is the idea that ALL issues I side with Democrats. I simply do not have a partisan view of the Democratic party, you want to know why? Ask me about the multitude of issues I disagree with Democrats/Obama on.

Second, explain to me why Obama's own quote is somehow now off limits. Was he lying then? What voter fraud existed pre-2008 that justified Obama's comments? And what has been done to get rid of those problems? And finally, where was the national outcry about Obama attacking the sanctity and fairness of the election process?

Obama's quote (which I do not agree with by the way) was questioning the process of collecting votes; he at no point talked about people casting ballots that they should not.

And here is probably the only part I do agree

That’s why we’ve got to have, I believe, a voting rights division in the Justice Department that is nonpartisan, and that is serious about investigating cases of voter fraud.”

I don't even believe voter fraud is a major problem, though it clearly exists. Just wanted to point out your hypocrisy. Mission accomplished.

1. I say voter fraud of people casting illegal ballots (thus a need for ID) simply does not happen
2. You quote Obama talking about a completely different type of voter fraud (fraud in voting tabulation), say I share those opinions without even me commenting on it (Thus YOU gave me my Partisan label)
3. You then say "I proved hypocrisy". No, you answered your own strawman.

I'll be clear: I do not care if Obama, Jesus, you, Trump, Hillary, or any other person says "I believe that voter fraud can happen", I disagree with that statement. There has simply never been ANY kind of voter fraud (either at the level of people casting multiple ballots or people rigging elections and voting tabulation) in the modern era that would require any sort of legislation to combat this fake problem.

Any idea either directly questioning the election process (i.e what Trump said) or indirectly questioning it (as Obama did) is simply unfounded in fact.

[RedBulls23]

Why are you guys even bothering arguing with Trump supporters at this point?

"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters,"

And then they cheered when he said it at the rally.

[Bascitball]

Why are you guys even bothering arguing with Trump supporters at this point?

Hint: Don't click on the thread if you don't want to read it.

This is the kind of snarky condescension and self-righteousness that doesn't help anyone. I don't even need to explain why.

EDIT: Both sides could say the exact same thing and it would be just as meaningless.

[GetBuLLish]

1. I say voter fraud of people casting illegal ballots (thus a need for ID) simply does not happen
2. You quote Obama talking about a completely different type of voter fraud (fraud in voting tabulation), say I share those opinions without even me commenting on it (Thus YOU gave me my Partisan label)
3. You then say "I proved hypocrisy". No, you answered your own strawman.

Except you did comment to my post without at all mentioning that what Obama was saying was false or misleading.

Any idea either directly questioning the election process (i.e what Trump said) or indirectly questioning it (as Obama did) is simply unfounded in fact.

Kudos for being consistent. I take my comment back. Dice on the other hand...

[Red Larrivee]

Why are you guys even bothering arguing with Trump supporters at this point?

"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters,"

And then they cheered when he said it at the rally.

The only candidate to flat out disrespect democracy and still have supporters.

[dice]

The bold part is not nice. I never said any of that. Please don't imply what I believe.

Edit: trying to be nice.

i didn't imply that at all. i'm implying that your theory has about as much rational merit as any of the other conspiracy theories i mentioned (and, frankly, nearly all prominent conspiracy theories). all are absurd suggestions

So you don't agree with Hillary's quote: "The great story here, for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it, is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president."

no, i don't believe that a bunch of republicans got together in a room and decided to make stuff up about hillary. that came naturally

if we're being honest, both sides jockey for any advantage they can get (no duh, right?). It's not really a conspiracy, it's political strategy.

you weren't talking about political strategy. you were talking about the media CHOOSING trump to be the nominee so that hillary would have a sitting duck to take out. and i'm sorry, but that's bat**** crazy

Each side has strategies they are more effective with than the other side. Most people agree that the Left uses the media more effectively (to put it gently)

if that was the case, right wing loons would not dominate the radio and fox "news" (effectively an arm of the republican party) would not be the highest rated political show on television

the media, more than ever is about ratings. money. the media (not a living breathing decision-making organism, by the way) doesn't care who wins the election

hollywood...now there's a liberal bastion. and hollywood is obviously a big part of television entertainment, which i suppose could be construed as the media. and the majority of newsmen/women are probably liberals, though they're hired by their corporate bosses (typically right of center). again, money

Is it really that unreasonable to conclude that media types would engage in politically timing articles rather than just reporting their findings immediately? You don't think they have meetings to decide on when/how to drop certain news (as long as they aren't in fear of being scooped by competition)? The media collusion with Hillary's staff during primary season probably cost the Left the chance at real change because Bernie got screwed. (See evidence - journalists sending articles to Hillary's staff for review and suggestions before publishing, feeding questions to Hillary before debates and so on.)

any media organization collusion i have to imagine is done out of self-interest. are some individuals in the news industry friendly and/or sympathetic to the people they are covering? of course. that's human nature. they might even help the subject out on occasion, either to keep them on the hook in a sort of quid-pro-quo arrangement or otherwise

Side note: It is sad that this post comes across as partisan fighting because I fully believe that the PEOPLE need to come together and demand change in Washington. Both parties have us on the ropes (by design), and there's a ton of more important stuff that we all agree on.

unfortunately, the american system is pretty much designed for two major political parties. it has been that way for almost the entirety of american history

[dice]

This is exactly what I mean by "willfull denial". P-S-Y-C-H-O-P-A-T-H.

F-A-L-S-E-H-O-O-D-S

this is hardly the primary example why I think Hillary is one of the worst candidates in the history of the country. The reason is C-O-R-R-U-P-T-I-O-N or what some people call crony-capitalism.

i take it you haven't voted for any presidential nominee in recent history then. because she isn't engaging in any thing that anyone else hasn't. maybe to a greater degree, but c'mon. where was the righteous indignation before?

You mentioned use of military force, so I responded that psychotic Hillary is far more likely to use military force in a frivolous manner than Trump.

D-E-L-U-S-I-O-N-A-L

again, who are you getting the "psychotic" nonsense from? reveal your loathsome sources. same folks that call obama a kenyan marxist? sure sounds like it

Man of truth? LOL. When you ignore everything that doesn't fit your agenda that's not "truth".

are you going to tell me what i have ignored, or is that a secret to be revealed after the election?

oh, maybe i'm not playing this trump-like twitter war correctly...i'll add a *roflcopter*

So enlighten us - what do you think about Hillary? Do you think she's honest? non-corrupt? Why are you voting for her (other than the party she belongs to)?

i don't give a good god damn about party. i care about results. and i see hillary being more or (probably) less an extension of what obama has done. bernie sanders thinks she'll go further. i am very skeptical. not that she doesn't want to, but i don't see her being able to. for christ's sake, we now have a group of republicans, including the formerly respectable john mccain, saying they won't confirm ANY supreme court justice she nominates. hard to do much of anything under the laws of the land when one party refuses to even participate. but simply four or more years of status quo is better than the enormous risk taken by letting a guy who pretty clearly LEGITIMATELY has mental disorders take the reigns. and that, sir, is why i am voting for hillary clinton (a woman who, by the way, has been a big part of why millions of americans have health insurance that otherwise would and who will attempt to raise taxes on the wealthy. i'm not sure which capitalists she's cronying up to there, but perhaps you can enlighten me. non-breitbart source please)

So do you support the positions he holds privately, or the positions she lies about publically?

You mention you are supporting the upkeep of the status quo. That you don't want to elect a man with a mental disorder. May I ask what even led you to that conclusion?

he's the dictionary definition of sociopath. everything notable he's ever done in his life

Everything Trump has said has thus far turned out to be accurate, even when there was massive backlash initially.

actually, he's the biggest liar in the recent history of presidential candidates. it's like a bodily function. seemingly every day another whopper

I'm just curious as to what bad you see in the Rep candidate that would make you vote for the Dem one?

complete and utter self-interest and unpredictability

and i'm not voting for hillary simply because trump is a disaster. i just don't think she's a particularly good progressive candidate. but i'd vote for her regardless of her republican opponent. and i voted for her in the primary because i think bernie is TOO progressive (in addition to being probably less likely to be able to work within the system at the presidential level to get much done). hillary the politician is left of center, which means that not only will right-wingers vilify her, as they have been conditioned to do with any and every democrat, but left wingers will despise her as well. and she's not a natural politician either, which i think makes it easier for people to dislike her. her husband has the same political views as her pretty much up and down the line. but we certainly didn't get the vitriol from the left that we get with her (despite his notorious unfaithfulness, which SHOULD engender more sympathy for her, and yet it doesn't). because he's bubba. and she doesn't have a fraction of the charisma. beyond that, i frankly think that even left-wingers are so tired of the relentless republican attacks on her that they subconsciously allow themselves to believe a lot of it just to they can justify to themselves wanting her gone. they're tired and they want a breath of fresh air, regardless of whether that moment of sweet relief is damaging to the country in the long-term. i sent in my absentee ballot for dubya in 2000 at the last second, not caring whether it actually got counted or not. partly because i was pro life at the time. and partly because i thought "well maybe he actually WILL be a 'compassionate' conservative." but mainly because i was sick and tired of al gore the annoying, un-charismatic, triangulating politician, as well as exhaustion from the gingrich/clinton scorched earth politics that was sure to continue with a gore presidency. but boy did i make a mistake. i should never have let personal short-to-medium term discomfort get in the way of the big picture. so yeah, i now hope that vote wasn't counted. not that it really mattered ultimately

[dice]

Nobody has touched the bolded point above. While the response will be predictable, I think this is a valid question that deserves to have a reply.

why would there be an outcry about expressing concern about voting machine issues or vote counting issues that actually HAVE existed (bush-kerry ohio, bush-gore florida...ring a bell?)? as opposed to the problem of people casting fraudulent votes, which, er...isn't actually a problem at all

So why would a person agree, in advance, to accepting the outcome of an election when such issues have caused concern in the recent past?

perfectly fair point. although to date the problems that have cropped up have been pretty much exclusively unfavorable to democratic voters, either in process or result (less voting machines in democratic districts, the florida fiasco, etc). but it's reasonable to suspect that there are operatives on either political side that would be willing to, for example, tamper with electronic voting machines or just secretly dispose of paper ballots the old fashioned way

(I agree that he should've just said, "barring an unforeseen situation - I will absolutely accept the will of the people.")

exactly

I believe that Trump is a businessman and doesn't see value in accepting these terms

i believe that he's appealing to the revolutionary zeal and unwavering belief of his hardcore nutjob ride-or-die supporters. until there is no longer a benefit to him. just like the birther charade

[SHO'NUFF]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/22/politics/donald-trump-jessica-drake/index.html

That **** cracks me up.....is that lady in the video even serious??

God i wish that man became president.....this country is so damn soft.

[TimRobbins]

I think with it would be easier to suppress the vote with voter id's than commit voter fraud. I can easily see scenario's where the common misspelling of a name, having apartment 2 instead of 3 or leaving that area blank, people with similar or maybe the same name with different middle initials, people having correct voter id information but getting the run around about where their correct polling place is. Especially considering low turnout usually benefits republicans in national elections and incumbents overall.

I think we should look at the world and adopt similar standards. Somebody mentioned the UK where you don't need an ID to vote. I do believe that in the vast majority of the world, a state ID is required for voting. I don't think address or spelling mistakes are a big deal and I can't see why demanding an ID would suppress voting.

[TimRobbins]

F-A-L-S-E-H-O-O-D-S

I just gave you the source. Hillary never denied it. So the Podesta emails are false? Wikileaks is false? D-E-N-I-A-L to the extreme.

i take it you haven't voted for any presidential nominee in recent history then. because she isn't engaging in any thing that anyone else hasn't. maybe to a greater degree, but c'mon. where was the righteous indignation before?

Candidates vary by the level of corruption. Hillary is the most corrupt of them all. Nobody owes more "favors" than Hillary.

D-E-L-U-S-I-O-N-A-L

again, who are you getting the "psychotic" nonsense from? reveal your loathsome sources. same folks that call obama a kenyan marxist? sure sounds like it

Have you read the Podesta emails? State department Wikileaks? Nah, you'll vote for al baghdadi if he runs under the "Democratic" label and say that him beheading people is simply a "conspiracy theory" which comes from "loathsome sources".

i'm a fan of the truth. you seem to be a fan of gross hyperbole and outright fabrication

Not a single fabrication. It's all documented in official emails. You just chose to be blind.

are you going to tell me what i have ignored, or is that a secret to be revealed after the election?

oh, maybe i'm not playing this trump-like twitter war correctly...i'll add a *roflcopter*

Is this a split personality thing? Look at the top of this discussion.

i don't give a good god damn about party. i care about results. and i see hillary being more or (probably) less an extension of what obama has done. bernie sanders thinks she'll go further. i am very skeptical. not that she doesn't want to, but i don't see her being able to. for christ's sake, we now have a group of republicans, including the formerly respectable john mccain, saying they won't confirm ANY supreme court justice she nominates. hard to do much of anything under the laws of the land when one party refuses to even participate. but simply four or more years of status quo is better than the enormous risk taken by letting a guy who pretty clearly LEGITIMATELY has mental disorders take the reigns. and that, sir, is why i am voting for hillary clinton (a woman who, by the way, has been a big part of why millions of americans have health insurance that otherwise would and who will attempt to raise taxes on the wealthy. i'm not sure which capitalists she's cronying up to there, but perhaps you can enlighten me. non-breitbart source please)

LOL @ you don't give a damn about the party. Have you ever voted for a non-Democrat?

Funny that you mentioned Medicare and Medicaid. I think that's a pretty great example of crony capitalism. The woman you so deeply adore also has been a "big part" of the fact that, by law, Medicare and Medicaid cannot negotiate drug prices (as they do in every other country in the world), but have to accept list prices for drugs. As a results, drug prices have gone up for American citizens in the thousands of percents since that great, altruistic woman helped so many Americans get coverage, and as a side-result (not intended in any way), pharma margins have skyrocketed, and Americans are paying multiple times more for drugs than anybody else in the world. But that's not crony capitalism. No. that's just a great woman doing great things for her loyal subjects.

I love it that Hillary has no shame to talk publicly about drug prices. That is truly priceless. I guess she has very little respect for voter intelligence. I thought she was wrong. Maybe not.

So, yeah. I would rather give the reigns to a mentally disturbed guy like Trump, than to a psychopath like Hillary. I admit, it's a tough call though.