Donald Trump: Its ok to grab women by the pussy if you're a star

[Cavebear]

The difference is that a Trump looks an asshole in the eye and asks for a good money deal, and Clinton says back down.

[Baruch]

The difference is that a Trump looks an asshole in the eye and asks for a good money deal, and Clinton says back down.

Did Clinton back down, when her Libyan allies were sodomizing Gaddafi to death?  But no, I wouldn't cut a business deal with Trump ... too much trouble.  And I would never cut a political deal with Clinton, because I would have a little card, with the name Vince Foster on it.

[Cavebear]

Did Clinton back down, when her Libyan allies were sodomizing Gaddafi to death?  But no, I wouldn't cut a business deal with Trump ... too much trouble.  And I would never cut a political deal with Clinton, because I would have a little card, with the name Vince Foster on it.

To think I first admired your posts...  No more sadly...

Do you have any SHRED of evidence that Clinton had anything to do with Gaddifi's death?  And never even mind what his own people did to him in their anger.

You bring up Foster's death.  He was a friend of theirs and committed suicide for reasons all his own.  They weren't involved.  Any evidence for that?

What else do you blame the Clinton's for?  9-11, Iraq, Putin? 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Clinton is experienced at dealing with world leaders, nuanced at considering conflicting views, and has positive ideas for correcting domestic problems.

Her foreign policy is 1. Send in the military, 2. If  that doesn't work, repeat step one.

Lots of experience doesn't necessarily translate into lots of good experience.

[Cavebear]

Agreed.  Note that I mentioned "nuanced"...

[Baruch]

To think I first admired your posts...  No more sadly...

Do you have any SHRED of evidence that Clinton had anything to do with Gaddifi's death?  And never even mind what his own people did to him in their anger.

You bring up Foster's death.  He was a friend of theirs and committed suicide for reasons all his own.  They weren't involved.  Any evidence for that?

What else do you blame the Clinton's for?  9-11, Iraq, Putin?

The Clintons are bad folk, that much is obvious.  They don't have to eat little children too.  I am free to express my "not personal" hatred for them, same as those tho express their "not personal" hatred of Trump.  If I were that type (and I am not) I would claim that Bill Clinton is the Devil and Hillary is Lilith.  I suspect that Jack and Jackie were the same ... except I don't see Jackie as a feminist, she only had the ambition to marry well, not be an Amazon warrior.  Yes, Obama is all at fault for Libya, like a good Nazi, Hillary was merely following his orders like the Stepford Wife she is.  Or did Obama delegate maybe?  The US has been, and remains, evil.  This causes me great pain as a patriotic American.  I don't appreciate Americans trashing America, from above or below.... and I don't mean saying false things about the USA, I mean making America be the bad guy.  I will never forgive or forget the policy "mistakes" of our leaders ... but I don't hold them personally responsible ... but try applying that to Hitler too.  Hitler wasn't evil, he was a good man, just doing the best he could at the time.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Agreed.  Note that I mentioned "nuanced"...

I saw that you used the word "nuanced".  I don't think there's anything nuanced about her gunboat diplomacy.

[Shiranu]

Their willingness to release information on anyone is why I respect them.

Ideology over consequence is very unbecoming.

[Baruch]

I only wish there was more consequence and lest ideology, for the whole Anciene Regime in DC.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Well, I admit, Wikileaks was a good thing when it was embarrassing Republicans, but when it started embarrassing Democrats, well, that's simply unacceptable. /sarcasm

[Shiranu]

It was a bad thing for a good agenda when it exposed relevant information about bad people, Republican, Democrat, American, European, Chinese or Russian.

Once it lost it's moral high ground and began releasing information that does more harm than letting it stayed classified, their illegal actions no longer become justified.

This isn't rocket science... an illegal act to stop a more nefarious illegal act is morally acceptable, but wiki leaks is losing that agenda and just becoming another political puppet for some self absorbed assholes. Which perhaps it always was.

Though I wouldn't expect a libertarian to understand the issue with that type of selfishness.

[Baruch]

Over and under classifying documents/emails ... is a standard way to CYA.  I don't approve of leaks, on principle ... I see leakers as egomaniacs.  And I don't feel a need to go SJW on the government.

[Cavebear]

It was a bad thing for a good agenda when it exposed relevant information about bad people, Republican, Democrat, American, European, Chinese or Russian.

Once it lost it's moral high ground and began releasing information that does more harm than letting it stayed classified, their illegal actions no longer become justified.

This isn't rocket science... an illegal act to stop a more nefarious illegal act is morally acceptable, but wiki leaks is losing that agenda and just becoming another political puppet for some self absorbed assholes. Which perhaps it always was.

Though I wouldn't expect a libertarian to understand the issue with that type of selfishness.

Well put.  Statements and acts are relative. 

[drunkenshoe]

Chill98, you are stupid. Nobody needs to provide with you anything to discuss, your 'reasoning' in this issue pretty much goes back to your position on anti-vaccination. Your understanding of experience in a job like international politics is that you can teach a dog to shake hands. Asking what Hillary has got to offer as opposed to Trump, when the race is between these two people, talking about Hillary's less than honest position in comparison with a barely literate thug monkey however, requires your dog teaching you some tricks I guess. But then probably he would make a better voter than you and a better president than Trump.

FaithisFilth, that is the description of the majority of the presidents US had according to the boogiemen of the their times. US international policy is based on spreading destruction around the world; fear in home; manipulating and screwing other governments and also their own people to gain profit and power. The fact that some of it started to dawn on some Americans will not change anything. However, there is still a difference between Bush and B. Clinton and so more between Trump and H. Clinton.

Baruch, you sound like you are watching this election like watching an award winning amateur porn series called 'The Wife and The Husband'.

You people always voted for some sort 'lesser evil' according to majority. Sometimes you won, sometimes you lost. The differences now; this is more openly acknowledged, the black and white political climate, fear, panic and that more people, esp. more young people are aware of the situation. Most of the former factor is hype, politics and media, the latter could be a good beginning.

But then I am more curious that after all this mess and fuss, how many people will even vote in the end.

[Cavebear]

Many will, aggravated by disliking the "other" candidate.  Might even set a record for votes.