world

Clinton, Trump: He's a national security danger; no she is

116 Comments
By KEN THOMAS and STEVE PEOPLES

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

116 Comments
Login to comment

The VA (Veterans Adminstration), Libya and Syria have all been disasters.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Trump is doing well for someone completely insane.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

CNN latest poll: trump and hillary are in a dead heat.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

@Crazy Joe - Not sure if he is completely insane but for the way he has conducted himself and the fact he has demonstrated himself to be unfit for office it is amazing how well he is doing. My opinion is that if the Democrats had a better candidate (I like Joe Webb). This election would have been over and wrapped up long ago.

Unfortunately Americans are left with these 2 and if Assange is right and Wikileaks has something really big on Clinton (the proverbial October surprise) Trump may actually win, which is a scary thought. On the other hand I think there is something big on Trump related to his finances (unrelated to Russia or anything overseas) and that is why he will not release tax records (which is standard procedure for Presidential candidates) and I would not be surprised if someone in the DNC has some information on this.

I think the final 2 months of the campaign (including the debates) are going to be the most interesting aspect of this campaign/debacle.

I think I will just be glad when it is over (although I will miss the entertaining comments on Japan Today)

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Trump is doing well for someone completely insane.

Hmmmm....I don't know which is worse a chronological habitual liar or an insane candidate, oh, the choices.....

-13 ( +1 / -14 )

Hmmmm....I don't know which is worse a chronological habitual liar or an insane candidate, oh, the choices.....

Framed that way, a liar.

But I don't agree with your assessment of her as chronological habitual liar. I think she is a politician, and lies no more or less than any of them. Politicians suck, but they are the system we have until we come up with something better.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

....a chronological habitual liar

Hey, at least she lies in order of time. Apparently.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

And here I thought Strangerland and Bass were going to actually find some common ground....almost I guess...just overlapping area in a Venn diagram maybe.

Bass - I do not agree with all of what you say..let's just say we are not even 50/50...however it seems you could say that humans need oxygen to live and people would down vote you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Trump's right - Hillary is a walking security risk.

"Trump is doing well for someone completely insane."

Heh, even Hillary doesn't say Trump is insane.

This is interesting: "Hillary Clinton Blaming Russia After FBI Says Clinton Was Extremely Careless and Negligent " ( Youtuber, author, columnist and journalist H.A. Goodman )

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

the democratic party chose the wrong candidate.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

tragic that this is where democracy leads us. for all the paeans to it as a political system, we have only had just over 200 years of it. the trajectory towards cronyism and demagogues is similar to that experienced in Athens and then Rome in over the centuries that they had a form of representative government.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

But I don't agree with your assessment of her as chronological habitual liar.

You may not, but The polls show otherwise.

I think she is a politician, and lies no more or less than any of them.

I'm sorry, but dealing with the Clinton's since the 90's she's been more of a liar, her and her husband more than any other politician, Democrat or Republican.

Politicians suck, but they are the system we have until we come up with something better.

Well, on that I do wholeheartedly agree.

-11 ( +2 / -13 )

I think it's pretty obvious that Trump is out of his league on foreign policy, but the GOP will take the risk.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Hey, at least she lies in order of time. Apparently.

Hehehehe

Heh, even Hillary doesn't say Trump is insane.

Because she's not Trump. Saying that wouldn't server her campaign well.

You may not, but The polls show otherwise.

It's been an amazing smear campaign, I can't disagree with that.

I think it's pretty obvious that Trump is out of his league on foreign policy, but the GOP will take the risk.

I'm not so clear on what policy he is in his league on.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

"Trump is out of his league on foreign policy"

I dunno, he hasn't been tested yet, has he? Meanwhile...

"Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy record is ‘just horrible,’ says prominent economist Jeffery Sachs" ( Washington Times )

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

I don't know which is worse a chronological [sic] habitual liar or an insane candidate

Worse would be a combination of the two (i.e. Trump).

5 ( +7 / -2 )

I dunno, he hasn't been tested yet, has he?

That's like saying someone who comes to a job interview to work at McDonalds, and tells the interviewer that people who eat McDs are fat-asses and he's going to tell them that, may be good if they were hired, because they haven't been tested yet so you can't know.

Sure, he hasn't actually been directly responsible for any foreign policy, but he has done absolutely nothing to suggest he'd be good at it, and a whole lot to suggest he'd be bad.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

"Because she's not Trump. Saying that wouldn't server her campaign well. "

Heck, she doesn't need any more servers.

Hehehehe

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

it's chronic, not chronological.

Easy mistake for second language speakers to make.

avoid the question of Trump's tax returns.

This is really concerning. Trump's got businesses and properties in Dubai (what’s his relationship to the various Gulf oil sheikdoms and the US oil titans?), Israel (what relationships does he have there?), Turkey (what’s his relationship to Sultan Erdogan?), The Philippines (what’s his relationship with Duterte?), among numerous other places worldwide. How will he deal with these leaders he has personal business dealings with should he be elected? How much in debt is he to Chinese and German financiers? How much in debt is he to US financial institutions? What deals can we expect him to make to resolve his debts in the US and abroad if he becomes president?

His financial market investment portfolio includes shares in the major US corporations that have long controlled the US. If he becomes president, will he grant special favors to them so they can become even more powerful, and he become richer, or maybe reduce his debts?

He’s got millions of his loyal followers to swallow his putative populist pap, but I have little doubt that he is just using another of his bait and switch techniques (See Trump U as an example.) and will revert to the global elitist he really is if elected.

How will his numerous federal court cases be resolved?

Release your tax info, Don!

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Heck, she doesn't need any more servers.

Haha! I just accidentally kicked that dead horse!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Trump really does have no other frame of reference for women than appearance, does he? And yet no one seems to have clued him in on the obvious. that he looks like a dayglo orange grifter trying to disguise himself as a garden gnome.

This is really going to serve him well during the debates. When the entire country gets to see a seasoned political uber- wonk with every fact at her fingertips feed this ignorant featherweight sociopath into a woodchipper and tapdance on his combed over remains.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Serrano - thumbs up. :)

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

This is interesting: "Trump: Balls Big Enough to Break System" ( African American Youtuber Derrick Grayson )

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

One thing is for sure- this presidential race is going to be very entertaining.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Let's not forget Trump's health issues, which have some doctors very concerned.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

It's been an amazing smear campaign, I can't disagree with that.

Perhaps shouldn't have smashed her Blackberries and hid evidence, then she wouldn't have to worry about being smeared. She dug that hole, now she needs a bigger shovel get out of that sinking sand.

@PT

Trump sould release his tax returns and Hillary should release all of her campaign speeches and transcripts where and how the money was used exactly.

So we do agree on something for a change.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

When the entire country gets to see a seasoned political uber- wonk with every fact at her fingertips feed this ignorant featherweight sociopath into a woodchipper and tapdance on his combed over remains.

I hope that's the case, but I suspect he's going to try to just talk over her, and if that doesn't work, he's refuse to do any further debates.

Perhaps shouldn't have smashed her Blackberries and hid evidence, then she wouldn't have to worry about being smeared. She dug that hole, now she needs a bigger shovel get out of that sinking sand.

Proper disposal of devices is very important so that someone cannot retrieve data from the old devices. I take a drill and turn my iphones into swiss cheese before I dispose of them.

As for the shovel, any sane person sees Comey's recommendation to not indict as a big enough shovel. As for you people, there is absolutely nothing that would convince you of the truth, and if this incident hadn't happened, you'd be smearing her for something else.

If Benghazi taught us anything it's that you don't care about the truth, you only care about how you can smear her reputation further.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

OK, Super, please elaborate on Trump's bad health, willya? Leaning on lecturns, maybe? lol He certainly looks younger than his 70 years.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

But he's a certified unhealthy crazy man.

You people ALWAYS give him a pass.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Certified unhealthy crazy man? By who? Mainstream media and Hillary Bots?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Hehehe, see how crazy talk like that comes across?

I think I managed to illustrate my point.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Clinton IS a risk to national security. Trump MIGHT BE. I say give the person a chance who hasnt already proven that they value "convenience" over security of classified information.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Seeing as this article is about national security, let's see how Trump answered a question from Gen. Michael Flynn about cyber security:

And you know cyber is becoming so big today. It’s becoming something that number of years ago, short number of years ago, wasn’t even a word. And now the cyber is so big, and you know look at what they’re doing with the internet. How they’re taking recruiting people through the internet. And part of it is the psychology because so many people think they’re winning. And you know, there’s a whole big thing. Even today, psychology — where CNN came out with a big poll. Their big poll came out today that Trump is winning. It’s good psychology, you know. It’s good psychology. I know that for a fact because people that didn’t call me yesterday, they’re calling me today. So that’s the way life works right?

Let's analyze this. Obviously, he has no idea what he's talking about, so he dissembles first to make his succeeding BS sound impressive (while using "cyber" as a noun - and, by the way, the word has existed since the 1950s). He then bends the topic towards something he does know: that ISIS is recruiting over the Internet - which has nothing to do with cyber security, but hey, it's the Internet, right? And then the obligatory winning comments segue with the obligatory "we're winning in the polls!" comments.

So that's Trump's opinion of cyber security. Ironic that it is also his main attack line on Clinton as he clearly has no idea what he's talking about.

https://www.inverse.com/article/20638-donald-trump-cyber-is-so-big-virginia-beach-rally

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Clinton IS a risk to national security.

Believing your MSM are you?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Both are war-mongering hawks. The difference is that Clinton has a proven track record of mishandling foreign policy whereas Trump has only the possibility. With Clinton, calamity is assured.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

@CrazyJoe, and you should know.

This election is a turning point in American political history.

"The Lesser of Two Evils-2016"

Niether is fit to be POTUS.

Hilary, like her husband before, will sell the US to China.

Trump will embarass the US into isolation.

By the Lords of Kobal, let the Libertaran Party come out on top!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Clinton, addressing supporters in Florida, warned that Trump would lead the nation back to war in the Middle East.

Liar. She's a warmonger.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

On November 13 last year, Trump again disparaged the skill of the American military by saying:

I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me.

Okay, perhaps he does. But how could one tell? On June 5, Trump elaborated:

They don't know much because they're not winning.

See? It's easy! All you have to do is know your enemy, and then you can defeat them! But he must have a plan, doesn't he? Rest assured! Here it is:

All I can tell you is that it is a foolproof way of winning.

So - perhaps he knows more about ISIS than the generals, and perhaps he has a plan, and perhaps he would like to share this plan with American voters before they choose the next president. Yesterday, he unveiled a major part of his plan:

I am also going to convene my top generals and give them a simple instruction: They will have 30 days to submit to the Oval Office a plan for defeating ISIS.

Yeah. Because all they've been doing to date is not trying to defeat ISIS. What a genius! If only Obama had thought of that! Plus, because Trump knows so much more than the generals and because he's so good at saying "You're fired!", they'll finally have incentive! Genius.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-isil-isis-227807#ixzz4JWjHCBMe

4 ( +5 / -1 )

His plan for winning is to torture enemy combatants (putting all American soldiers at risk, and contravening the Geneva Convention) and/or to kill their families (putting all American soldiers' families at risk).

I'm sure the military will love that.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

As SoS, Clinton got her hands bloodied by her actions in relation to Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Egypt, Syria, and Libya (probably others as well). Trump has ruffled the feathers of some who choose to be offended. Which is more dangerous again?!?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

"Let's analyze this. Obviously, he has no idea what he's talking about, so he dissembles first to make his succeeding BS sound impressive (while using "cyber" as a noun..."

Oh good grief, at least Trump isn't a walking cyber security risk.

"Both are war-mongering hawks"

What makes you say Trump is a war-mongering hawk? Oh, that's right, he said he will take out ISIS, which would be a bad thing, right?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

tragic that this is where democracy leads us

I'm not sure we can be called a democratic republic anymore. The corporate media is clearly giving Hillary a pass while sticking it to Trump...

"The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers... [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper." --Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Proper disposal of devices is very important so that someone cannot retrieve data from the old devices. I take a drill and turn my iPhones into swiss cheese before I dispose of them.

Funny that Hillary is the only that goes through that drastic measure, a bit of overkill, Gee...I wonder why?

As for the shovel, any sane person sees Comey's recommendation to not indict as a big enough shovel. As for you people, there is absolutely nothing that would convince you of the truth, and if this incident hadn't happened, you'd be smearing her for something else.

I have been in and out of Washington for over 30 years all around the beltway, basically from my experience, you are right, I don't trust these people and nothing would convince me especially the history I have with Democrats, so No, I'm not buying it. Hillarybots can though, fine with me.

If Benghazi taught us anything it's that you don't care about the truth, you only care about how you can smear her reputation further.

I only believe the families and the men that WERE there on the ground trying to save those 4 Americans.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

"his summertime dust-up with the Muslim parents of a slain American soldier"

Khaaaaan! He should be pissed at Hillary for voting for the war that killed his son.

This is interesting: "Hillary Clinton's Irresponsible Cybersecurity Policy Could Lead to War With Russia" . ( Youtube - The Humanist Report )

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Ben Carson was asked today about whether he thinks Trump should apologize for his promotion of birtherism - the quite clearly racist concept that Obama was not born in the US - and, surprisingly, Carson was almost lucid:

I think that would be a good idea, absolutely. I suggest that on all sides. Let’s get all of the hate and rancor out of the way.

"On all sides" - what a great concept! Trump could apologize for pursuing a ridiculous concept with deeply racist undertones far beyond when it was discredited by everyone except Brietbart and other less-savory recesses of the Internet, and Obama's supporters could apologize for criticizing Trump for pursuing a ridiculous concept with deeply racist undertones far beyond when it was discredited by everyone except Brietbart and other less-savory recesses of the Internet. Everyone is happy! Except for Trump, for whom an apology is akin to water and the Witch of the West. Asked about this, Trump said yesterday:

I don’t talk about it, because if I talk about that, your whole thing will be about that. So I don’t talk about it.

See? It never happened if you don't talk about it! I bring this up because of Trump's reaction to Obama being snubbed on the tarmac in China:

I’ve got to tell you, if that were me, I would say, ‘You know what, folks, I respect you a lot but close the doors, let's get out of here.’"

That would have shown them - Air Force One pulling a 180 and jetting back to Washington! Ha! That is leadership - at least in Trumpville: Never apologize, and never put up with an insult, even if it means snubbing the G20.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Outrider: "the democratic party chose the wrong candidate."

No, registered Democratics - and Independents where allowed - chose the wrong candidate.

Ummm... Wait... No, the Democratic Party machine chose the wrong candidate more than a year ago if not the day after Election Day 2008.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Funny that Hillary is the only that goes through that drastic measure, a bit of overkill,

Cognitive dissonance. You haven't heard that others are doing it, so you assume they aren't. When the reality is that you aren't reading it because there isn't any reason for you to be reading it. Imagine this headline every time someone replaces their phone:

Senator gets new iPhone 6, destroys old phone for security reasons

That would run pretty dry reading about a thousand times when the new iphones are released.

I only believe the families and the men that WERE there on the ground trying to save those 4 Americans.

Yeah, you won't even believe your own Republican investigating committee on the matter.

As I said, Benghazi has shown us you people are not interested in the truth, only in smearing Hillary (and Obama).

1 ( +3 / -2 )

OMG - CNN has Trump leading Clinton 45%-43%, and among independents, 49%-29%! This CNN poll must be bogus...

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

"I think that would be a good idea, absolutely. I suggest that on all sides. Let’s get all of the hate and rancor out of the way."

Good of Carson.

That would have shown them - Air Force One pulling a 180 and jetting back to Washington! Ha! That is leadership - at least in Trumpville: Never apologize, and never put up with an insult, even if it means snubbing the G20.

Trump has thin skin. The problem is that his whole life he's been around brown nosers. Everyone who has talked to him has wanted something from him. So he can't handle any kind of conflict. Hence the thousands of lawsuits he makes.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

deeply racist undertones

Cant wait to see you explain how "deeply racist" it was to question Cruz's eligibility for President.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Fuzz, there is no doubt regarding Cruz's birthplace - Canada. Now, if you'd like to call questioning whether Canadian-born American citizens are eligible for the presidency racist, go ahead. It is a valid question, however, one that the Supreme Court has yet to rule on (McCain, born in the Panama Canal Zone, got a special dispensation from Congress - might have gone to the Supremes nonetheless, but that turned out not to be necessary).

Apples and oranges. The witch hunt over Obama's birthplace never had an ounce of substance and was perpetuated only because his father was from Kenya.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Apples and oranges. The witch hunt over Obama's birthplace never had an ounce of substance and was perpetuated only because his father was from Kenya.

I agree. I thought it was very stupid, but not racist.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

@Strangerland No I am believing the fact that she was proven careless with classified information. The fact that she cant even remember going to a required security briefing due to "losing her memory sometimes". The fact that her staff member was also careless by leaving classified information in her car!!? (yet was not fired). The fact that she claims she doesn't even know what the letter "c" means on a document. "But security is important to me!!"

Which one is it, is she just that dumb or just doesnt care? It has to be one of those and either one means she IS a risk. You cant claim a head injury causes you to not recall things (37 times?) yet the same head injury does not preclude you from being President? Nothing about MSM, just facts.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I thought it was very stupid, but not racist.

C'mon, fizz - if he'd been born in exactly the same circumstances except with a father from some European country - say, Scotland - do you really think Trump would have attacked so tenaciously, or that anyone would have cared? It was born of racism, and racism kept it alive. (Let's not even get into the "Obama is a secret Muslim" thing.)

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Cognitive dissonance. You haven't heard that others are doing it, so you assume they aren't. When the reality is that you aren't reading it because there isn't any reason for you to be reading it. Imagine this headline every time someone replaces their phone

I'm just knocked over you actually believe this. I've heard a lot of far out excuses, but that one there, boy, oh, boy......

Yeah, you won't even believe your own Republican investigating committee on the matter.

That's ok, as long as they and the other MSM never let up on this, I'm good!

As I said, Benghazi has shown us you people are not interested in the truth, only in smearing Hillary (and Obama).

As long as the families and others that were involved and to make sure she's never off the hook, I'm good with whether she gets into the White House or not.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Let's not even get into the "Obama is a secret Muslim" thing

I don't waste my time with such BS. Let the FOX followers do their thang. I know Hillary did not use it, but we do know that someone in her campaign back in 2008 brought up the idea. Still don't think it was racist. If I were Obama, I would have released my BC the same day it became "top" news. Why wait 3 years to release the long form? Again...stupid.

It was born of racism

That's your opinion. Fair enough. Have any proof?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

1/20/17 - "Madame President" !

1 ( +4 / -3 )

bass:. As long as the families and others that were involved and to make sure she's never off the hook,

That's how a lot of people feel about George Bush and Iraq, but it tends to make you angry when people say that. Something about the statue of limitations on outrage.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Trump for POTUS! frack it lets do it! lets do it and see how crazy shite can get!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Madame President

Not gonna happen!! You can only go so long peddling one lie after next expecting people, well most people to remain oblivious to it. Trumps a horrendous alternative but heck since time began people have been fleeced with the "lesser of two evils" shtick. I wonder what kills faster, rat or weed poison, take your pick folks!!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Fizz, to paraphrase Forrest Gump quoting his mother, "racist is as racist does." The fact that a large percentage of birthers supported Cruz despite the facts of his birth - facts not true in the case of Obama but in his case upheld as disqualifying - might cause one pause. Could it be, perhaps, that Cruz is a white Hispanic?

Nah - I'm reading too much into this. I'm sure there must be other reasons, such as ... uh, well, that Cruz' father is not African-born? If you have any other theories, please share them. (And, no, don't get started that some pointed out his foreign birth as potentially disqualifying - that is fact in Cruz' case.)

0 ( +2 / -2 )

All readers back on topic please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bass

I have been in and out of Washington for over 30 years all around the beltway,

So from your journalistic experience, what would you prefer in a president in terms of foreign policy?

a) A candidate you have enthusiastically described as a 'loose cannon' with no foreign policy experience. A man who refuses to (or can't) articulate a coherent foreign policy platform without resorting to empty adjectives.

or

b) A candidate you have derided as a 'chronological habitual liar', an insider with experience, one who may be politically wily and controversial, but who is nonetheless a known quantity (and somewhat of a hawk at that).

Who would you prefer to have their finger on the nuclear button, or on the imperative to kill large numbers of people, or on the possibility to shape our children's future? A populist outsider who shoots from the hip as the moment dictates, or a calculating insider who prefers caution, but is unafraid to attack when deemed necessary?

As a fellow journalist and human, I'm vexed by this difficult choice. We are stuck in a horrible dilemma. Personally, I do not like Clinton, but I dislike Trump far more.I would like to hear your opinion.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

That's how a lot of people feel about George Bush and Iraq, but it tends to make you angry when people say that. Something about the statue of limitations on outrage.

Some may think that and that's their prerogative. And No, it doesn't make me angry at all, people can say whatever they want. At least Bush was trying to hide the war, he wasn't out there getting everyone to coverup for bungled mistakes and No Ambassador died on his watch.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

While I think both candidates are awful, I tend to look at the security risk portion from a personal perspective. If I send even one classified email through an unclassified system, I lose my job. I'm not even talking about SCI or SAP, I could be as low as confidential but that wouldn't matter.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

who prefers caution

That's your mistake. Hillary takes her orders from the hegemonic War Pigs, no different than Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama. Just how much more war in the ME do you need to get this through your plastic head?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Why aren't more Americans coming out in support of common sense, true decency and a real possibility of a bright future for the US? Govs Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are the Libertarian candidates and they've just done an awesome AMA on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/51ijlj/hi_reddit_we_are_a_mountain_climber_a_fiction/

There ARE better options than Trump/Clinton. PLEASE, all thinking Americans... vote these guys in!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"Personally, I do not like Clinton, but I dislike Trump far more"

I'll take Trump over Hillary any day.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Govs Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are the Libertarian candidates

I've watched a couple of interviews with Johnson, and while he has a few bizarre ideas, overall he seems pretty stable and good.

But that said, he has zero chance of winning, so a vote for him is essentially pulling a vote away from whichever candidate ends up losing.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

This is not a merry-go-round USAers need to be on. They're both idiots. Vote third party, Gary Johnson or Jill Stein

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

This is not a merry-go-round USAers need to be on. They're both idiots. Vote third party, Gary Johnson or Jill Stein

You realize that even if you vote 3rd party, either Trump or Hillary is going to win, right?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

not if enough people vote. Everyone's vote is a protest vote anyway, so do it right

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

not if enough people vote. Everyone's vote is a protest vote anyway, so do it right

This is it - if enough people are galvanised into voting for a 3rd party candidate, it can swing. Long shot for sure but c'mon... do it!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

not if enough people vote. Everyone's vote is a protest vote anyway, so do it right This is it - if enough people are galvanised into voting for a 3rd party candidate, it can swing. Long shot for sure but c'mon... do it!

exactly

0 ( +1 / -1 )

This is it - if enough people are galvanised into voting for a 3rd party candidate, it can swing. Long shot for sure but c'mon... do it!

I wish all would realize that the US Gov are a bunch of criminals and would never allow an outsider to be elected. Trump is an outsider. They feared Gore might be a decent guy. The MSM controls the message, that's why the thousands of people showing up at Trumps rallies are not reported on and Soros has called off his dogs.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

WOW the pasture is calling the COW home!!! Clinton lies so much she can't even recognize the truth if she heard it. What a dumb statement by her!

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

At least Bush was trying to hide the war, he wasn't out there getting everyone to coverup for bungled mistakes and No Ambassador died on his watch.

I'm sure the families of 4500 of our finest men and women who lost their lives because they were sent into a war based on Bush and his crony's lies will take great solace in this observation.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Back to foreign policy, Trump said this morning

I just don't think she has a presidential look. And you need a presidential look. You have to get the job done. I think if she went to Mexico, she would've had a total failure. We had a great success.

Aside from the "total success" of his Mexican sojourn ("success" having a very, very low bar at the Trump campaign), what could he have meant by not having that "presidential look"? Could it be her choice of fashion? Her wide grins that may suddenly turn into scowls if displeased? Perhaps it is her height?

What it wouldn't be is the fact that she is female - you know, that only males are taken seriously when it comes to negotiating with foreign leaders, mano-a-mano and all. We can be sure that Trump's surrogates will assure us of that within the next few hours.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

As SoS, Clinton got her hands bloodied by her actions in relation to Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Egypt, Syria, and Libya (probably others as well). Trump has ruffled the feathers of some who choose to be offended. Which is more dangerous again?!?

List is too long, Libya was hers for sure, but Iraq? Have you forgotten who invaded that country? Republicans are either very dim or very selective in their recall. But the point is someone who has no idea what he is doing is better than someone who does. Looking at facts Trump has failed in just about everything he has done, casinos, university, planes, food, magazines, and on and on. The TV show is not his, he is an actor in it. So to expect Trump to even has a chance of doing anything right in foreign affairs is zero. In that regard he is very much like Bush Jr who failed at everything he did in life as well leading up to being elected and ended up being the worse President ever, well maybe second to Reagan who sold arms to Iran while President.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

So, Clinton has her new plane, that fits a press core. And for two days, she's given a press meeting.

And set's the stage for the day's news cycle.

See, this is what is known as "running a competent campaign."

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Hillary coughing baby aliens into a glass.

The choice is clear!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B46oJlwqHWY

Hillary spits TWO large, green objects into glass of water during coughing fit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StPwqD2Tbsw

GROSS - Hillary Spits Mystery Substance Into Glass and Continues Drinking it !

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

They are both dangerous. Vote: "NONE OF THE ABOVE"

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

FizzBit: The MSM controls the message, that's why the thousands of people showing up at Trumps rallies are not reported on

I was thinking last night there must be some reason why the MSM falls all over themselves to ignore Hillary's problems. At least it doesn't make it to their voting recommendations.

But it's a lot more clear when you remember that Bernie had the same problem. If he had won the primary, he probably would have won the general. So 1 + 4 or 8 years of Boring Bernie. How could they walk away from the prospect of 9 years of juicy news stories on Hillary or Trump?

Even Assange is calling out the FBI for not following up on Hillary's 'I thought it was a paragraph designator'!

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Pence may teplace Trump. Pence defied Trump and said Obama is American, and many came out to say Obama went I iv in USA. This was fight after he talked to black towd

0 ( +1 / -1 )

After reading all of this, I still can't work out whether she is a chronological habitual liar, or a habitual chronological liar. Can you please enlighten us, Mrs President?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I'm sure the families of 4500 of our finest men and women who lost their lives because they were sent into a war based on Bush and his crony's lies will take great solace in this observation.

That's funny, now the left care and have the deepest concern for our military, but when it's 4 Americans that died under the hands of our Secretary of State, it's just a small thing? Wow, just simply, wow!

So from your journalistic experience, what would you prefer in a president in terms of foreign policy?

a) A candidate you have enthusiastically described as a 'loose cannon' with no foreign policy experience. A man who refuses to (or can't) articulate a coherent foreign policy platform without resorting to empty adjectives.

or

b) A candidate you have derided as a 'chronological habitual liar', an insider with experience, one who may be politically wily and controversial, but who is nonetheless a known quantity (and somewhat of a hawk at that).

Because of what she'll do to the Supreme Court, not to mention her questionable relationship with dictators, especially the ones that have a very violent laws and standards of treating women and children and domestically having our country continue on a sluggish path, watching the middle class shrink, I'll choose option A.

Who would you prefer to have their finger on the nuclear button, or on the imperative to kill large numbers of people, or on the possibility to shape our children's future? A populist outsider who shoots from the hip as the moment dictates, or a calculating insider who prefers caution, but is unafraid to attack when deemed necessary?

Most definitely option A.

As a fellow journalist and human, I'm vexed by this difficult choice. We are stuck in a horrible dilemma. Personally, I do not like Clinton, but I dislike Trump far more.I would like to hear your opinion.

I feel the exact opposite.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That's funny, now the left care and have the deepest concern for our military, but when it's 4 Americans that died under the hands of our Secretary of State, it's just a small thing?

No, you are mistaken. It's a major thing that four people died. We just aren't willing to do the Republican thing and blame someone who wasn't responsible.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Like I said, I don't care about either political parties on this, I care only about what the family's say and the 4 men that tried to save ambassador Stevens. That's who I believe.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

That's funny, now the left care and have the deepest concern for our military, but when it's 4 Americans that died under the hands of our Secretary of State, it's just a small thing? Wow, just simply, wow!

Once again, you've completely missed the point. The point is not about your contempt for some people on the left's sudden "deepest concern" for our military. It's about Republican hypocrisy regarding their attempt at taking Hillary Clinton down over the tragedy in Bengazi while at the same time, ignoring the lies that got 4500 U.S. military people killed not to mention the numbers of our allies or Iraqi civilians. If your concern is about lives being lost in the service of our nation, I'd say the Iraq war and how we got there should have gotten a lot more scrutiny--especially from "concerned" Republicans who were very happy to waste money and time on repetitive "investigations" on the tragic incident in Libya while conveniently sweeping the Iraq war under the carpet.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Like I said, I don't care about either political parties on this, I care only about what the family's say and the 4 men that tried to save ambassador Stevens. That's who I believe.

I don't doubt that at all. But the question involves motivation. Why is it that you are so concerned with these 4 Americans? Is it because of a sense of duty? A search for the truth? Fighting for the victims?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Once again, you've completely missed the point. The point is not about your contempt for some people on the left's sudden "deepest concern" for our military.

Because the left don't want to hear it?

It's about Republican hypocrisy regarding their attempt at taking Hillary Clinton down over the tragedy in Bengazi while at the same time, ignoring the lies that got 4500 U.S. military people killed not to mention the numbers of our allies or Iraqi civilians.

You mean the same war Hillary voted for, the same woman that approved of those 4500 people that were killed and mostly by the sectarian violence overwhelmingly? But now all of a sudden the screamers of the Bush war now have short meme rise and the libs that were the most critical of that invasion give a pass to the woman that totally supported it. Once again, we have to analyze liberal hypocrisy.

If your concern is about lives being lost in the service of our nation, I'd say the Iraq war and how we got there should have gotten a lot more scrutiny--especially from "concerned" Republicans who were very happy to waste money and time on repetitive "investigations" on the tragic incident in Libya while conveniently sweeping the Iraq war under the carpet.

Sweeping, sadly no. I think the liberals were just angry because Bush had no regrets about disposing Saddam. If you want to debate his going into Iraq was wrong, I won't quibble and if people didn't agree with the war, I get it and I'm not blaming them, if we could go back, personally, I probably wouldn't knowing what we know now. So he does need to take some responsibility. At the same time, we can thank Obama a lot for being responsible in helping create ISIS, he also needs to take responsibility for not acting soon enough.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Because the left don't want to hear it?

No, because many people are tired of hearing 13 investigations where the end result is the same thing--a partisan witch hunt which resulted in nothing but wasted time and money.

Once again, we have to analyze liberal hypocrisy.

I don't think anyone on the left is denying that Hillary voted for the war and bears just as much responsibility as others in Congress who voted for it. You make it seem like she alone bears the blame for going to war, which is simply not true. Finally, no, she is not getting a pass. Many people are just tired of Republicans taking the high moral ground on issues like Benghazi while not putting in even half of the effort in bringing those to justice who got us into the Iraq mess in the first place. You do see some people's problem with raising 13 investigations over a tragic incident which resulted in 4 deaths but having no investigations or raising the same ire over something that killed over 4500 people in the service of their country?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Your last post actually proves you don't care about the people killed anywhere Bass, and just care about smearing Hillary.

You accuse it of the left, but in your accusations you prove it true of yourself.

Not that I expect you to be able to recognize that.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@The Fu - agree whole heartedly I dislike both equally and will write in someone else

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

No, because many people are tired of hearing 13 investigations where the end result is the same thing--a partisan witch hunt which resulted in nothing but wasted time and money

Uh-huh...you think so, but the people that involved in this don't think so.

You make it seem like she alone bears the blame for going to war, which is simply not true.

The others aren't in this race. She's running for the presidency, that's why.

Finally, no, she is not getting a pass. Many people are just tired of Republicans taking the high moral ground on issues like Benghazi while not putting in even half of the effort in bringing those to justice who got us into the Iraq mess in the first place. You do see some people's problem with raising 13 investigations over a tragic incident which resulted in 4 deaths but having no investigations or raising the same ire over something that killed over 4500 people in the service of their country?

Of course she's getting a pass. Until last week, the press were pretty much not doing their job and focusing on Trump too much, but now that he's been staying on track and careful with his rhetoric, the MSM have nothing else to do, so now with Trump being pacified the media HAS to turn their attention to Hillary and emails and Vigorously scrutinize them all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Uh-huh...you think so, but the people that involved in this don't think so.

Just who exactly are those people? You claim that you believe the families, so why do you refuse to believe Ambassador Stevens' family when they say that Hillary is not to blame?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/24/mother-of-slain-diplomat-chris-stevens-tells-trump-to-stop-explo/

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/chris-stevenss-family-dont-blame-hillary-clinton-for-benghazi

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/stevens-family-clinton-benghazi-interview/

The only people you believe are Patricia Smith and Charles Woods because their views support your partisan agenda. Never mind that all of the investigations found nothing. You still insist on bringing this up and making an issue out of it. As far as the new emails go, I'm sure this is another waste of time that will result in another dead end.

It's time to let this go already.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The more Republicans can keep their supporters hooked on imaginary scandals and conspiracy theories, the more it distracts from their lack of policy.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

It's time to let this go already.

No no, let them keep bleating on about it. The longer they go on, the less credibility they have, even with people who once were inclined to believe.

While some people are so partisan they'd believe that the sun was cold if their party told them so, a lot of people actually have the intelligence to recognize lies for what they are at a certain point.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Just who exactly are those people? You claim that you believe the families, so why do you refuse to believe Ambassador Stevens' family when they say that Hillary is not to blame?

That's one out of 7, I'm not calling the Stevens family liars, never did, but again, the rest of the families and the men that tried to get the 4 out have a different account of events and how they feel the situation was handled, so I'm going with the majority.

The only people you believe are Patricia Smith and Charles Woods because their views support your partisan agenda.

My partisan agenda? Not at all.

Also, you don't have any objections with the Khans supporting a woman that voted for a war in which their son died, but blame Trump. Jeeeez! You libs are all over the place.

Never mind that all of the investigations found nothing. You still insist on bringing this up and making an issue out of it. As far as the new emails go,

With live in hope.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

dmacleod: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/chris-stevenss-family-dont-blame-hillary-clinton-for-benghazi

That's odd. Your link says:

The Committee’s eight-hundred page report, which wraps up a two-year, seven-million-dollar investigation, specifically reprimanded the State Department, then under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; the Pentagon, headed at the time by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta; and the C.I.A. ... In a separate, forty-eight-page addendum, two Republican Committee members, Mike Pompeo, of Kansas, and Jim Jordan, of Ohio, went even further, alleging that the Administration deliberately covered up the full truth about the attack at a time when President Obama was facing a tough reëlection campaign. “We expect our government to make every effort to save the lives of Americans who serve in harm’s way,” Pompeo said, in a statement. “That did not happen in Benghazi. Politics were put ahead of the lives of Americans.”

But according to the prevailing news (such as MSNBC headline at the time) and various posters here, Clinton was "exonerated", nothing was found, and the investigations were a waste, and we should stop talking about it.

And those paragraphs above are without all the missing evidence that the Clinton team attempted to hide outside of government records and delete and maybe even BleachBit.

Nice! You set such a low bar for the office! The Marion Berry theory of electionability! Can we make up a slogan for that? Like: 'If it's Blue it's True!' Or: 'Good enough to fool the FBI!'

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The others aren't in this race. She's running for the presidency, that's why.

So, everyone who voted for the war is absolved of all responsibility for their actions because they are not running for President. Yes, that logic makes sense, now doesn't it?

That's one out of 7, I'm not calling the Stevens family liars, never did, but again, the rest of the families and the men that tried to get the 4 out have a different account of events and how they feel the situation was handled, so I'm going with the majority.

Yes, and that "one" is the person who you are making the most fuss about since he was an ambassador. As far as who I believe, I'm going with the results of all 13 investigations--and they are all quite consistent in their findings--which was they couldn't find any wrongdoing on Clinton's part.

I find it interesting that there were 13 attacks on U.S. embassies and consulates during the Bush years, and staff members were killed--they just weren't ambassadors, so I guess that they don't count, right? After all, we didn't get multiple investigations about those incidents, now did we?

Also, you don't have any objections with the Khans supporting a woman that voted for a war in which their son died, but blame Trump.

"Libs" are supporting the Khan's because they had a son who made the ultimate sacrifice but then had to deal with Trump's cheap shots afterwards. They are blaming Trump for his crass handling of the whole situation.

With live in hope.

I'm not sure what that means, but I think it should say, "We live in desperation."

1 ( +1 / -0 )

My partisan agenda? Not at all.

Well, considering your Republicans found no wrongdoing on her part, I suppose you aren't really partisan. Just someone who has fallen for the brainwashing of your MSM, letting them convince you there is something where there isn't.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

And those paragraphs above are without all the missing evidence that the Clinton team attempted to hide outside of government records and delete and maybe even BleachBit.

Oh please, more consipracy theory "evidence."

Register your complaints with the FBI if you have a problem with their investigation or results.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

So, everyone who voted for the war is absolved of all responsibility for their actions because they are not running for President. Yes, that logic makes sense, now doesn't it?

Is Reid running for president, he's not on the ballad, right?

Yes, and that "one" is the person who you are making the most fuss about since he was an ambassador. As far as who I believe, I'm going with the results of all 13 investigations--and they are all quite consistent in their findings--which was they couldn't find any wrongdoing on Clinton's part.

Again, I could care less if the FBI are in the tank for Hillary, everyone knows it. I just care about the other families and hope they get the answers they rightly deserve.

I find it interesting that there were 13 attacks on U.S. embassies and consulates during the Bush years, and staff members were killed--they just weren't ambassadors, so I guess that they don't count, right? After all, we didn't get multiple investigations about those incidents, now did we?

Probably because thy didn't stonewall or lie and blamed a Choptic Christian as a scapegoat to cover up any of their blunders.

"Libs" are supporting the Khan's because they had a son who made the ultimate sacrifice

Like you said, so did many others, like the families of Benghazi.

but then had to deal with Trump's cheap shots afterwards. They are blaming Trump for his crass handling of the whole situation.

I agree that Trump was out of line for what he said, but at the same time, Trump has every right to defend himself and doesn't have to take shots of a man that supports a woman that voted for the war in which his son died in. This stinks to high heaven of the worst liberal hypocrisy.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I just care about the other families and hope they get the answers they rightly deserve.

If that were true, you'd either accept that they got the answers already, or that the answers need to be found somewhere else since they weren't where you were told they were.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@turbostat: I can see why you are confused. You cited quotations from partisan Republicans who were on the witch hunt, but their allegations were later proven to be false. There is a difference between a fact and an opinion. Opinions are not always facts.

Is Reid running for president, he's not on the ballad, right?

I'm going to assume that you meant "ballot" since we aren't discussing musicals. I'm not sure why you added this non-sequitor because the main point was that everyone who voted for the Iraq war bears some responsibility for it.

Again, I could care less if the FBI are in the tank for Hillary, everyone knows it. I just care about the other families and hope they get the answers they rightly deserve.

There are 13 different investigations that they can read to get their answers. Unless you have some information that all of those committees missed, I don't think the end results are going to change.

Probably because thy didn't stonewall or lie and blamed a Choptic Christian as a scapegoat to cover up any of their blunders.

More speculation without providing actual evidence to support it.

This stinks to high heaven of the worst liberal hypocrisy.

The only hypocrisy here is Republican hyper-partisanship to take a tragic incident like Benghazi and use it to try and take down an opponent because they have nothing else they can offer. As far as Trump goes, he has only himself to blame for his issues.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

doesn't have to take shots of a man that supports a woman that voted for the war in which his son died in

Trump supported the invasion of Iraq as well.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

the main point was that everyone who voted for the Iraq war bears some responsibility for it.

Then Hillary should be the last person to vote for.

There are 13 different investigations that they can read to get their answers. Unless you have some information that all of those committees missed, I don't think the end results are going to change.

I think you're right, but given the fact that each time a new mail revelation comes out it damages her, bit by bit is more than enough. Hillary a few weeks ago was a mile ahead in the poles and that gap has now closed, in some polls Trump is leading 2-3 points. If Hillary wasn't tarnished and was seen as a more favorable candidate, she'd be way, way, ahead of Trump, but she's not, it's now a very close next and next tie.

The only hypocrisy here is Republican hyper-partisanship to take a tragic incident like Benghazi and use it to try and take down an opponent because they have nothing else they can offer. As far as Trump goes, he has only himself to blame for his issues.

Yeah, you go and believe that, if it were up to liberals and Dems, they would have loved the people to believe Susan Riice's BS story that it was a video that was the catalyst to the Jihadists wanting to attack our embassy when Hillary admitted to her own daughter and to the Egyptian president that it was a Jihadist attack. So either Hillary was completely lying or she is completely incompetent and incapable of being president, if she cannot recall events or make serious decisions.

Trump supported the invasion of Iraq as well.

Yup and he was a private businessman as well and wasn't in politics at all

0 ( +0 / -0 )

US Presidential elections? The Brexit vote? Democracy? Bah humbug. What the people need is to be controlled, by someone who knows best. Eg Putin? That bloke in the Phillipines? Trump? Is there life on Mars?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Maybe, according to the latest news, this will all be a "thing" of the past, with Trump being arrested for human trafficking. "The openly anti-immigrant candidate is being accused of “illegally importing” women to work as models in his agency, and while this makes him look like a giant fool, it could also hold legal ramifications that would leave Trump paying a hefty fine, and possibly even serving jail time for human trafficking." Along with her letter, Boxer also tweeted out:

Trump: tough on illegal immigration unless he’s importing foreign models to exploit. https://t.co/eahs6srlDE

1 ( +1 / -0 )

RE: I’ve got to tell you, if that were me, I would say, ‘You know what, folks, I respect you a lot but close the doors, let's get out of here.’"

That would have shown them - Air Force One pulling a 180 and jetting back to Washington! Ha! That is leadership - at least in Trumpville: Never apologize, and never put up with an insult, even if it means snubbing the G20.

It is leadership, meaning the US or Japan for that matter does not have to kiss anyone's feet, only an idiot would not have common sense to know that one is not respected and nothing to do with taking an insult.

Good going for Trump to take a stand instead of the political correctness that only makes the US come across as weak. If your the big dog then you need to bite not just all show with nothing but talk and no substance

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Don't expect many articles like this from now on. We have Matt Lauer to thank for it.

Trump will no longer be graded on a curve.

He's going down in a big way.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It is leadership, meaning the US or Japan for that matter does not have to kiss anyone's feet, only an idiot would not have common sense to know that one is not respected and nothing to do with taking an insult.

If it was a meeting just with China, then yeah, turning around and going home would be justified. But when it's a meeting with 20 world leaders, then it's not as easy as just turning around. Doing so would be cutting off your nose to spite your face, out of a sense of pride, not logic.

Yeah Trump would have turned around, because Trump is too stupid to realize that would be worse than staying. Obama has the intelligence to look past the snub for the better of his country. Taking one for the team as it were.

Next time China wants to hold a gathering of world leaders, the US should strongly protest, and point out how they weren't mature enough to handle it this time, as evidenced by the snub. That's how adults deal with situations like this. Not getting all pissy at a snub and ditching out on a meeting with 18 other world leaders that didn't snub America.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Clinton, Trump: He's a national security danger; no she is

At least with Trump it's only been talk. For Hillary it is her actions that is her problem. She helped get America in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and was in charge when the ambassador and three others were killed in Libya. Not to mention all of the unsecured secret and top secrete documents she placed at risk by creating her own communications system lacking the security of even a public service. We might speculate that Trump is a loose canon. We already know for a fact that Hillary is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The left wingers, socialists and anyone else who thinks the corrupt hillary is a better option, they are totally suspending reality and history when making the claim Trump is a national security problem and hillary isnt. Aside from the national security exposure of secrets, Hillary has a record. That record is very specifically, supporting local groups by funding, arming or supporting them to topple governments in the arab spring wars, including the group which became ISIS. Her policies led directly to Terror groups like ISIS, Muslim brotherhood and others to take power over governments or regions resulting in thousands dead and the world being on the brink of world war 3. An unindetended consequence of Hillary's factual history of what she did in north africa and the middle east created actual slave industries. A man can go online and find a price list of female rape slaves complete with plan B abortion pills and other services. This is Hillary who opened the door to an actual openly performed slave industry and the cap that all of the other unintended consequence is a Terrorist Army roaming the earth, attacking in nearly every country and raping, pillaging, assaulting and murdering its way across Europe to this day. To really top it off, she has flatly stated on her own website a bullet point to do all of the above again, with support of local groups to topple enemies as well as continue negotiations with countries like Iran which are allowing the Iranians to obtain nukes with US provided money. This is Hillary and democrats, She started at least 8 wars, thousands dead, slavery, an army of terror on the loose and expanding nuclear proliferation to religious fanatics.

Trump of course, is not a professional politician and is not party to or a cause of anything which resulted inn wars, armies invading, slavery and death all around the world. Nor are his policies likely to do any of the above because none of his policies are the ones the democrats use and have used often to start numerous wars or allow psychotic armies of tyrants to gain power. Even that is a left wing result which has occurred often for the last 80 years.

And worse again for Hillary, he pay to play RICO through the clinton foundation, it is not unreasobale to be concerned she might sell to the highest bidder, targets for her to hit with Nukes on behalf of Ayatollahs, Castros, Kims, "insert the name of favored democrat communist and islamonazi tyrants here"

Want World War 3, put hillary in charge, she is certain to succeed in that goal. Along with a repeat of the Obama great recession.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

They are both nut's

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites