Politics

[Kchrpm]

The Cincinnati Enquirer has endorsed the Republican candidate for president for 100 years. That streak stops with this election. I think they did a good job of summarizing things as they've happened to this point.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opin...rump/90728344/

Concluding statements

Trump’s rise through a crowded Republican primary field as well as Sanders' impressive challenge on the Democratic side make clear that the American people yearn for a change in our current state of politics. However, our country needs to seek thoughtful change, not just change for the sake of change. Four years is plenty of time to do enough damage that it could take America years to recover from, if at all.

In these uncertain times, America needs a brave leader, not bravado. Real solutions, not paper-thin promises. A clear eye toward the future, not a cynical appeal to the good old days.

Hillary Clinton has her faults, certainly, but she has spent a lifetime working to improve the lives of Americans both inside and outside of Washington. It's time to elect the first female U.S. president – not because she's a woman, but because she's hands-down the most qualified choice.

[Crazed_Insanity]

I disagree. I completely believe the Clintons care very much for the country and the people of the country. I also believe they know the system better than anyone, and the only way to get things done is to make the corporations, establishments and allies happy, then maybe you can get a little bit of the good things done. They game the system for all of our benefit, not just their own. She could have retired and just let money from speeches and books come in rather than running for office after office if all she cared about was herself.

Hate the game, not the player.

Wow, faith is strong with you!

What is the basis of your 'belief'?

Anyway, has it occurred to you that some people just might be attracted to power rather than retiring?

I really don't believe she's in it for 'us'... or at least not those deplorable ones in Trump's basket.

[Crazed_Insanity]

The point is you were asked a question, and instead of answering it you asked more questions.

If someone asked me for Hillary's positive campaign promises, I would find this:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...aign-promises/

A few of my favorites:
1. "For families making less than $125,000 a year, we will eliminate tuition" for in-state students at public colleges.
4. "We will do everything we can to overturn Citizens United."
9. "As president, Hillary will expand background checks to more gun sales."

What about Donald Trump's?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...aign-promises/

A few of my favorites:
3. ‘Bring manufacturing (jobs) back’
4. Impose tariffs on goods made in China and Mexico
9. Cut taxes

See? It's not that hard. If someone asks for information, provide it. Don't just filibuster and ramble and ask questions back. This can be done with any topic, on either side. A discussion using specific, referenced/linked examples, not just rhetoric and vague allusions.

Yes, not hard. However, Jesus himself also often answered a question with more questions... so I'm just trying to more like Jesus!

Anyway, here, let's let Jill speak for herself:

[overpowered]

[Yw-slayer]

This "ending birther" stuff is firmly in the realm of the surreal.

Yes, not hard. However, Jesus himself also often answered a question with more questions... so I'm just trying to more like Jesus!

No wonder people don't want to discuss anything with you.

[drew]

Oh for fuck's sake.

[neanderthal]

Wow, faith is strong with you!

What is the basis of your 'belief'?

Anyway, has it occurred to you that some people just might be attracted to power rather than retiring?

I really don't believe she's in it for 'us'... or at least not those deplorable ones in Trump's basket.

We're all still waiting on the basis of your beliefs. Other than vague references to "wikileaks" that are otherwise completely unsubstantiated, unlisted, undocumented, and remain hidden, undisclosed, and are mostly in your head. Until you reveal them to us of course.

But thanks for playing.

[Crazed_Insanity]

For the love of God, here's a link for you: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/damag...ry?id=40852448

RNC is not trustworthy is a given. That incident of wikileak revealing what the DNC was up to confirmed my suspicion that I can't trust DNC as well.

Again, you guys can trust her and the DNC if you want, but my belief is based on that incident. It also made the other smear campaigns all the more believable...

[JoshInKC]

So the fact that the DNC was less-than-enthusiastic about a guy who joined the party like a year ago is what makes you hate Hillary?
Okay. That seems nuts to me, but at least its a reason I guess.

[neanderthal]

For the love of God, here's a link for you: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/damag...ry?id=40852448

RNC is not trustworthy is a given. That incident of wikileak revealing what the DNC was up to confirmed my suspicion that I can't trust DNC as well.

Again, you guys can trust her and the DNC if you want, but my belief is based on that incident. It also made the other smear campaigns all the more believable...

Finally, a morsel of reason in our discourse.

Except, it's still a figment of your imagination; so now can you point to anything in those emails that DIRECTLY CONNECTS HILLARY CLINTON to the actions undertaken by the DNC? Is there a tweet from her, an email from her, collusion/ direct communication from her camp to disenfranchise Bernie? Give us something, something credible, something relevant please.

You've labelled Hillary as the untrustworthy one but lambasted someone else in the sole "rationale" you've given us.

This statement following is akin to what you're saying; "I hate LeBron because Stephen Curry is a better pure shooter."