Well, it's been a struggle but I have decided my vote for the presidential election. Rather than throwing my vote away on a third candidate, I am voting for one of the leading two. It is insanity to keep trying the same thing over and over, expecting a different outcome, so I'm going with the most extreme possibility available. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/22/20-reasons-donald-trump-2016/
Too bad. Bad vote. Bad decision. Bad for the country. The most dangerous politician I've ever seen. And I have much of the military and intelligence community to back me up on that.
I don't know what's worse.. The fact that you are supporting such a candidate, or that you actually read Breitbart..
I simply googled "Why vote for Trump" Honestly, if I thought there was any possibility for a third candidate to win, I would give that candidate my vote.
I've quit voting because if you look around the country is still continuing on without it. The main reason I do not vote is because both parties are only in it for themselves and their biggest donors. So after all these years what has either party really accomplished? They have both put our economic situation in dire straights and with both of them digging the hole deeper with now a 20 TRILLION dollar debt Americans will soon have a very dangerous collapse. As you know that any country that cannot pay back its debts will soon tumble into the economic cesspool of recession or depression.
Ok, fixed it for you Lets all get out there and kill some more to satisfy Hillary Hawk Clinton's blood thirst. If she gets in, she can start a nuclear war with china and kill 500,000,000 human beings, which could lead to a global conflagration that kills 5,000,000,000 of your fellow human beings. Will her bloodlust be satisfied then? Can a thirst for blood ever be satisfied?
Yep, she could. She most likely will not. She has never advocated for that, nor has she suggested it would be a good idea. She has years of experience working with foreign countries without starting nuclear wars with them. Meanwhile, Trump has already been asking - loudly - why he can't just use nukes against people who piss him off. "If we have them, why can’t we use them?" He has a habit of encouraging violence against people he dislikes. He does not understand our nuclear defenses or how our military works. He does not know what Russia is doing. He never apologizes or backs down. Fifty Republican former national security officials just signed a letter that said Trump would "put the nation at risk." And here's what a nuclear launch officer - one of the people who would actually have to turn the key to launch those missiles at China - said: . . . . .Trump would be undoing 6 decades of proven deterrence theory. The purpose of nukes is that they are never used. Trump disagrees. This would be the single greatest strategic shift in US national security in decades. In a Trump Presidency, our foreign policy would be this: "Leave our alliances, fall back on a nuclear first use policy." Does he understand just how F'ing dangerous that is? But what really concerns me, as a former nuke guy, is the idea of a narcissist walking around with nuclear authenticators. Even his supporters think he is dangerous. One supporter: "There’s only one thing that scares me about him is that he’s a very headstrong person, and he don’t like listening to people. And if… there ever will be a World War III, that might happen with him because he’s so bull-headed and headstrong. But we’d probably win. Hopefully." So who is more likely to start a war, again?
She's a bit hawkish, but Donald is a freaking demon. He has a temper, he doesn't understand world events, he's vindictive and petty, he talks openly about using violence against his domestic opponents. He's truly the greater evil by far.
Poe's Law. There is nothing - nothing at all - too damn stupid and silly for a Clinton Derangement victim to believe. If that was an attempt at parody, it doesn't work. You cannot parody them. And in the other ear (it's not risen to the dignity of a "side") people who have latched unto her as some kind of icon of enormous capability fighting the good fight for us all. Man o man - wtf is it with the Clintons? We've got people claiming this politician is some kind of masterful liberal strategist and beacon of hope for civil rights, and people claiming she's some kind of maniacal serial killer slavering at the prospect of getting her hands on the nukes. Guys: she's not a Dragon Lady of any kind. She never has been. That stuff was all made up, twenty five years ago, by the same people who were marketing Reagan as an economic genius and staunch defender of conservative principle, W as a man's man and Commander in Chief. She's an Eisenhower Republican, ideologically, of mediocre ability and dubious association, with a long, thin, track record mostly comprised of ordinary failure and misjudgment under pressure; especially on the executive side of things - which is her new job, no? She's very bright in a policywonk way, and has decent human instincts, but has compromised both her intelligence and her instincts on grounds of political expediency throughout her career. She's as likely to start a war with China (against the wishes of Goldman Sachs, notice) as a wet towel is to catch fire in the laundry hamper (She's far more likely to grease the path for China's sovereign fund to move into the US financial system, maybe set up a US chartered bank or pick up some key real estate). The Republican Party has launched two land wars in Asia, and engineered the worst financial disaster since WWII, and reorganized the entire Federal bureaucracy under Homeland Security (the biggest expansion and elaboration of the Federal bureaucracy since the New Deal). The Democratic Party has twice now (Clinton and Obama) dug the US at least part way out of an economic ditch the Republican Party drove it into. So there's that - if you care. There's the several times that Democrats in Congress or the White House prevented things like privatizing Social Security - putting it into the stock market - say just before the Crash of 2008: https://www.brookings.edu/research/...tive-failed-and-what-it-means-for-the-future/ Have you thanked them?
