• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Devout Hillary Supporters[W:634]

Re: Devout Hillary Supporters

"You people"? Who would that be? Have you ever taken a civics class? Stop believing what the left tells you and do some research. Isn't it possible that when the Democrats took Congress in November 2006 that they saw an opportunity to regain the WH and implemented a marketing campaign that sold you a bill of goods? Do some research and find out what the economy was doing before the first Democrat budget and legislative initiatives?

The facts simply prove that "you guys" really is the Democrat Controlled Congress and Obama's incompetence

Of course that is what you believe because that is what you want to believe. Unfortunately for you that isn't reality. what you think isn't supported by actual data. Treasury shows what exactly the debt was when Bush's spending authority ran out in March 2009 and there was no budget for 2009 until Obama signed it in March. The debt was 11 trillion dollars of which 450 billion was TARP loans and Bush only had 3 of 12 spending bills for the year approved. The rest were continuing resolutions. So when the 450 billion was paid back in 2009 the actual Bush debt left to Obama was 10.6 trillion and it is 19.2 trillion now. Obama has proposed a 4.1 trillion dollar budget now so is that someone who cares about the deficit?

Obama knew he could convince people like you that Bush was to blame because that is what you want to believe. Republicans didn't screw up as the economic data would show and they lost the Congress because of Iraq in 2006, Check out GDP, unemployment, discouraged workers, debt prior to the Democrats getting the legislative authority and purse strings?

You tell me, what did the Republicans filibuster 69 times?

Two years, four years, eight years is not time enough to change the trajectory of something with momentum or repair long term damage.

All I know is that the Republicans were running around crying, "failed stimulus," like it was some kind of victory for them to prove their disproved (now for the fourth time) economic program.
 
Re: Devout Hillary Supporters

You tell me, what did the Republicans filibuster 69 times?

Two years, four years, eight years is not time enough to change the trajectory of something with momentum or repair long term damage.

All I know is that the Republicans were running around crying, "failed stimulus," like it was some kind of victory for them to prove their disproved (now for the fourth time) economic program.

I have no idea, you made the claim

Good leadership and good economic policies would have turned this economy around a lot quicker. how did the recession affect you and your family

The stimulus did fail or do you call taking employment from 142 million down to 139 million in two years a success?
 
Re: Devout Hillary Supporters

I have no idea, you made the claim

Good leadership and good economic policies would have turned this economy around a lot quicker. how did the recession affect you and your family

The stimulus did fail or do you call taking employment from 142 million down to 139 million in two years a success?

Nothing would have turned the economy around quicker than the filibustered measures. Then you wouldn't need leadership, you wouldn't need economic policies, government could just stay out of the business and with that proper stimulus the recovery would have been better.
 
Re: Devout Hillary Supporters

Nothing would have turned the economy around quicker than the filibustered measures. Then you wouldn't need leadership, you wouldn't need economic policies, government could just stay out of the business and with that proper stimulus the recovery would have been better.

Look, I know what you want to believe but the Obama stimulus was signed on February 17, 2009 and wasn't filibustered. It was the stimulus that failed so what exactly did the Republicans filibuster? Be careful on what you post and determine what was part of that stimulus, what is state and local responsibility, and what policies to increase wages would have created more jobs?

To show you the Obama incompetence, he passed a stimulus program without Republican support and when that didn't create the shovel ready jobs he went on to ACA which did create jobs, PART TIME JOBS. Please learn how to research and stop letting the left tell you what to think.
 
Re: Devout Hillary Supporters

The problem is that saying "Bush lost 700,000/month" implies that that was the average of all jobs lost. There is no way to know that you were referring only to the average of his last 2.5 months in office.
Yeah, he knew. I posted a couple of times which months I was referring to. Here's the first time I referenced it:
In November 2008, 768,000 jobs were lost. In December 2008, 695,000 jobs were lost. In January 2009 (which Bush was still President and his policies were still in effect), 791,000 jobs were lost. This comes to an average of 751,000 jobs lost.

I've also said on a couple of occassions that the average referred to those three months. He is well aware of what I'm talking about.

For his final 12 months in office (basically from the start of the recession until he left the presidency) the average change in non-farm payroll jobs was -352,000..a far cry from -700,000
Agreed, but the whole thing started from this original statement of his:
It has been stated that Bush lost 700,000 per month but when asked to list the months I get silence.
So he was asking for the months when Bush lost 700,000 jobs and I gave it to him. While December was slightly under, November and January were significantly over, so I feel it's fair to just lump the three of them in together, though I did specify each month's losses.
Do you have a point
I've made one point already. You asked for the months of 700,000 jobs lost under Bush and I gave it to you. You've acknowledged it is true.

My other point is to see if you apply the same standards to the Republican Congress regarding debt as you do to the Democratic President. So far, your response has been mixed signals.
The average lost jobs for Bush in 2008 was WHAT?
Irrelevant to what we were discussing.

And why does it matter now
You asked the question, not me. Why are you asking me why it matters? It was your question.

You do realize that the House is one branch of the Congress, don't you? For some reason you want to believe that the House controlled the Congress
Nope, I'm just giving them the blame they deserve. Why aren't you?
 
Re: Devout Hillary Supporters

Yeah, he knew. I posted a couple of times which months I was referring to. Here's the first time I referenced it:


I've also said on a couple of occassions that the average referred to those three months. He is well aware of what I'm talking about.

Agreed, but the whole thing started from this original statement of his:

So he was asking for the months when Bush lost 700,000 jobs and I gave it to him. While December was slightly under, November and January were significantly over, so I feel it's fair to just lump the three of them in together, though I did specify each month's losses.
I've made one point already. You asked for the months of 700,000 jobs lost under Bush and I gave it to you. You've acknowledged it is true.

My other point is to see if you apply the same standards to the Republican Congress regarding debt as you do to the Democratic President. So far, your response has been mixed signals.
Irrelevant to what we were discussing.

You asked the question, not me. Why are you asking me why it matters? It was your question.

Nope, I'm just giving them the blame they deserve. Why aren't you?

It really is tough dealing with civics and economics challenged people
 
Re: Devout Hillary Supporters

It really is tough dealing with civics and economics challenged people
I think it's funny how you cannot even respond with a coherent argument anymore and all you have left are baseless ad hominems. The fact is I've proven my case over and over. I guess when all you care about is feelings, facts and reality just get in the way for you.

Anyways, just remember you've been given, and have acknowledged, an example of compassionate results from a government program, you've seen, and have acknowledged, that Bush lost 700,000 jobs a month in the last three months of his presidency and that if you don't want to be considered a lying partisan, then you have to recognize that Republicans in Congress are just as responsible as the Democratic President for the debt during their time of power, if you want to blame Congressional Democrats equally with the Republican President for the recession. Now, if you want to say the recession was Bush's fault, then you can say the debt is Obama's fault. Neither would be factually accurate, but at least you couldn't be called a lying partisan.

I'm sure you're getting tired of having your partisan rhetoric exposed for the nonsense it is, so I'm willing to let this be my last post on the subject for now. Just understand that facts and reality will always trump partisan rhetoric.
 
Re: Devout Hillary Supporters

I think it's funny how you cannot even respond with a coherent argument anymore and all you have left are baseless ad hominems. The fact is I've proven my case over and over. I guess when all you care about is feelings, facts and reality just get in the way for you.

Anyways, just remember you've been given, and have acknowledged, an example of compassionate results from a government program, you've seen, and have acknowledged, that Bush lost 700,000 jobs a month in the last three months of his presidency and that if you don't want to be considered a lying partisan, then you have to recognize that Republicans in Congress are just as responsible as the Democratic President for the debt during their time of power, if you want to blame Congressional Democrats equally with the Republican President for the recession. Now, if you want to say the recession was Bush's fault, then you can say the debt is Obama's fault. Neither would be factually accurate, but at least you couldn't be called a lying partisan.

I'm sure you're getting tired of having your partisan rhetoric exposed for the nonsense it is, so I'm willing to let this be my last post on the subject for now. Just understand that facts and reality will always trump partisan rhetoric.


Look, you pick and choose what you want to believe and what you want to ignore. I admit that I am a partisan conservative and have no use for Obamanomics. I am sure you have seen people here blame Bush totally for the recession and housing crisis and ignore that we have equal branches of the govt. I have said over and over again, many times, that Bush AND Congress are responsible for the housing crisis and financial bubble bursting. It was the loans made during the Bush term that burst the bubble but it wasn't those loans that created the bubble.

Also it has been said here and you posted that CBO projected the debt for 2009 and you bought that prediction without even considering what was in that prediction. I countered by posting the link to the Treasury data and told you that TARP made up 450 billion of that debt at the end of March 2009. Simple question then WAS TARP REPAID and if so WHEN and did it reduce the deficit that you want to blame Bush for? Research will show that Bush spent 350 billion in TARP spending between October and December 2008 which then is part of the deficit, isn't it?

Included in that deficit projection was a loss of revenue due to a loss of jobs. Now as I posted and will again, had Obama not signed a stimulus for shovel ready jobs then the entire lost jobs would have been Bush's but he did sign the stimulus and that stimulus did not create the taxpayers necessary to reduce the amount of lost revenue and in fact employment(taxpayers) went from 142 million to 138 million and then up to 139 million in January 2011. What would 4 million then 3 million fewer taxpayers do to federal revenue and how can anyone say that the stimulus was a success?

So not exactly sure what you want me to admit that I haven't already done, we lost 700,000 jobs in November, December 2008 and January, February 2009. When you said per month I assumed it was an average but I was wrong, I APOLOGIZE, happy now? Bush economy lost those jobs and got a lot of help from Congress. Bush left the country with 11 trillion dollar in debt of which some of it was due to spending on TARP, agree? What was the amount of debt that Bush left Obama? Are you ready to admit that there wasn't a budget for 2009 until Obama signed it in March? That being the case how is Bush responsible for the entire 2009 deficit and that CBO Projection since the fiscal year of the US runs from October to September? This means that all that deficit was done in 6 months.

Basic civics will tell you that we have three equal branches of govt. and one of those branches is Congress made up of the House and Senate. The first budget of the Republican House was fiscal year 2012 created in 2011. Deficits per year are as follows:

2009 10.1 11.9 1.8
2010 11.9 13.6 1.7
2011 13.6 14.8 1.2
2012 14.8 16.1 1.3
2913 16.1 16.7 0.6
2014 16.7 17.8 1.1
2015 17.8 18.2 0.4



Republicans and Obama are responsible for the deficits from 2012 to the present but then the question remains what were the economic policies enacted by that Congress that affected revenue and expenses?
 
Re: Devout Hillary Supporters

Look, you pick and choose what you want to believe
I choose to believe facts.
I admit that I am a partisan conservative
Well, I'm glad you're aware of that. But you do realize you don't have to ignore facts to be partisan, correct?
I am sure you have seen people here blame Bush totally for the recession and housing crisis
And they would be wrong for that, though there were things which could have been done to minimize it. But, at the end of the day, hindsight is always 20/20.
you posted that CBO projected the debt for 2009
Which was posted to show that the vast majority of FY 2009 debt was already expected/incurred by the time Obama took office.
and you bought that prediction without even considering what was in that prediction.
Because it proved the point. :shrug:
I countered by posting the link to the Treasury data and told you that TARP made up 450 billion of that debt at the end of March 2009....
Without bogging down into useless details, you DO realize all of this was irrelevant to the point, right? I could just as easily spend my time pointing out that part of the debt incurred under Obama's watch were programs which were started under Bush. But that wouldn't be the point either.

The point was that you cannot have two different standards for people based on the letter behind their name and have any hope of credibility. While I'm well aware simply breaking things down to "Obama took office January 2009 and House Republicans took office January 2011, so they are both responsible for everything that happened after" is incredibly simplistic and, quite frankly, unrealistic. But it's the game YOU were playing so I was simply showing that if you were going to play that game, then you need to be consistent with the rules.

So not exactly sure what you want me to admit that I haven't already done, we lost 700,000 jobs in November, December 2008 and January, February 2009.
Which was the first intention I had. You said you hadn't seen it and now you have.

When you said per month I assumed it was an average but I was wrong, I APOLOGIZE, happy now?
Yes.

Are you ready to admit that there wasn't a budget for 2009 until Obama signed it in March?
No, because, once again, that's an incredibly simplistic presentation of it. What I will agree to is that the final spending bills were not officially law until Obama signed in March. But that doesn't in anyways mean that Congress went 6 months without spending money or having a plan to spend money, nor does it mean Bush didn't sign bills/appropriations for fiscal year 2009 spending.

That being the case how is Bush responsible for the entire 2009 deficit and that CBO Projection since the fiscal year of the US runs from October to September?
The point was that, before Obama even took office, there was going to be a massive deficit. There's no doubt Obama signed bills which increased spending, but it was an increase upon that which was already being spent.
This means that all that deficit was done in 6 months.
If $1.2 trillion (or even your $1.0 trillion) was projected before Obama even stepped into office, then how is Obama responsible for anything more than $200-400 billion of the deficit?

Basic civics will tell you that we have three equal branches of govt. and one of those branches is Congress made up of the House and Senate. The first budget of the Republican House was fiscal year 2012 created in 2011. Deficits per year are as follows:

*table read and shortened for character limits*

Republicans and Obama are responsible for the deficits from 2012 to the present
No, from 2011 to the present. That's what I'm saying. If Obama is responsible from January 2009, then Republicans have a responsibility from January 2011 to the present.
but then the question remains what were the economic policies enacted by that Congress that affected revenue and expenses?
I'm sure if we really wanted to waste our time we could go step by step and show how each side was responsible for what, but at the end of the day, those of us who aren't hopelessly partisan realize that the majority of the massive deficits incurred in Obama's first few years were the result of cratering economy and that the deficits have been shrinking because revenues are increasing faster than spending.

It's important to understand I'm not blaming or crediting one person or party over another. I'm saying that if you are going to blame one or another, then you have to use the same standards for blame. If Obama is responsible for everything after January 2009, then Republicans have to share the blame for everything after January 2011. You cannot have differing standards and hope to be taken seriously.
 
Re: Devout Hillary Supporters

I choose to believe facts.
Well, I'm glad you're aware of that. But you do realize you don't have to ignore facts to be partisan, correct?
And they would be wrong for that, though there were things which could have been done to minimize it. But, at the end of the day, hindsight is always 20/20.
Which was posted to show that the vast majority of FY 2009 debt was already expected/incurred by the time Obama took office.
Because it proved the point. :shrug:
Without bogging down into useless details, you DO realize all of this was irrelevant to the point, right? I could just as easily spend my time pointing out that part of the debt incurred under Obama's watch were programs which were started under Bush. But that wouldn't be the point either.

The point was that you cannot have two different standards for people based on the letter behind their name and have any hope of credibility. While I'm well aware simply breaking things down to "Obama took office January 2009 and House Republicans took office January 2011, so they are both responsible for everything that happened after" is incredibly simplistic and, quite frankly, unrealistic. But it's the game YOU were playing so I was simply showing that if you were going to play that game, then you need to be consistent with the rules.

Which was the first intention I had. You said you hadn't seen it and now you have.

Yes.

No, because, once again, that's an incredibly simplistic presentation of it. What I will agree to is that the final spending bills were not officially law until Obama signed in March. But that doesn't in anyways mean that Congress went 6 months without spending money or having a plan to spend money, nor does it mean Bush didn't sign bills/appropriations for fiscal year 2009 spending.

The point was that, before Obama even took office, there was going to be a massive deficit. There's no doubt Obama signed bills which increased spending, but it was an increase upon that which was already being spent.
If $1.2 trillion (or even your $1.0 trillion) was projected before Obama even stepped into office, then how is Obama responsible for anything more than $200-400 billion of the deficit?

No, from 2011 to the present. That's what I'm saying. If Obama is responsible from January 2009, then Republicans have a responsibility from January 2011 to the present.
I'm sure if we really wanted to waste our time we could go step by step and show how each side was responsible for what, but at the end of the day, those of us who aren't hopelessly partisan realize that the majority of the massive deficits incurred in Obama's first few years were the result of cratering economy and that the deficits have been shrinking because revenues are increasing faster than spending.

It's important to understand I'm not blaming or crediting one person or party over another. I'm saying that if you are going to blame one or another, then you have to use the same standards for blame. If Obama is responsible for everything after January 2009, then Republicans have to share the blame for everything after January 2011. You cannot have differing standards and hope to be taken seriously.

Great, now do you want to get back on track with the thread topic? Why would anyone support another 4 years of an incompetent in the WH with zero management, leadership, or executive skills. She has a lot of titles but is short on results except for her own personal bank account. Her judgment is suspect if not fatally flawed. She attached herself to the coattails of a popular politician and every position held can be traced back to Bill Clinton's popularity
 
Re: Devout Hillary Supporters

Great, now do you want to get back on track with the thread topic? Why would anyone support another 4 years of an incompetent in the WH with zero management, leadership, or executive skills. She has a lot of titles but is short on results except for her own personal bank account. Her judgment is suspect if not fatally flawed. She attached herself to the coattails of a popular politician and every position held can be traced back to Bill Clinton's popularity

Bank account is good measure of success.

You for some reason seem to begrudge her this.

They say behind every great man is an even greater woman so you even begrudge her the glory of having been First Lady.

Since you don't come to the level on these other issues, I'm going to disbelieve your assessment of her executive, leadership and management skills.

She has had premier association her whole life. She must have to have learned something she can put to use.
 
Re: Devout Hillary Supporters

Great, now do you want to get back on track with the thread topic? Why would anyone support another 4 years of an incompetent in the WH with zero management, leadership, or executive skills. She has a lot of titles but is short on results except for her own personal bank account. Her judgment is suspect if not fatally flawed. She attached herself to the coattails of a popular politician and every position held can be traced back to Bill Clinton's popularity

As the New York Times Editorial Staff said in its endorsement:


Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination.

Voters have the chance to
choose one of the most broadly
and deeply qualified presidential
candidates in modern history.


The entire article is worth reading:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-endorsement.html
 
Re: Devout Hillary Supporters

As the New York Times Editorial Staff said in its endorsement:


Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination.

Voters have the chance to
choose one of the most broadly
and deeply qualified presidential
candidates in modern history.


The entire article is worth reading:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-endorsement.html
I don't see how it is any surprise that NY times, a left leaning media source would endorse the de facto Democratic nominee. I do love this quote though.

"Some, [complaints] like those about Mrs. Clinton's use of a private email server, are legitimate and deserve forthright answers."

The endorsement was posted January 30th. It is May 13. How many forthright answers has she provided again?
 
Re: Devout Hillary Supporters

I don't see how it is any surprise that NY times, a left leaning media source would endorse the de facto Democratic nominee. I do love this quote though.

"Some, [complaints] like those about Mrs. Clinton's use of a private email server, are legitimate and deserve forthright answers."

The endorsement was posted January 30th. It is May 13. How many forthright answers has she provided again?

There are all sorts of questions that ALL POLITICIANS should be able to provide...

...but any competent opposition can find fault with the answers and describe them as non-answers.

Hillary Clinton has indicated that nothing of what she did...was illegal...and nearly as we know right now, none was.

Using her personal server may not have been her best move...but I defy anyone here to find a candidate for any office who has never made a move that was not the best move.

Personally, I think there is NO THERE THERE on the Benghazi or Email nonsense.

She is a competent woman...and, as the article stated, one of the most qualified candidates ever to run for the office.

I certainly hope she is elected...and I can understand the feelings of those who hope that she is not.
 
Re: Devout Hillary Supporters

Bank account is good measure of success.

You for some reason seem to begrudge her this.

They say behind every great man is an even greater woman so you even begrudge her the glory of having been First Lady.

Since you don't come to the level on these other issues, I'm going to disbelieve your assessment of her executive, leadership and management skills.

She has had premier association her whole life. She must have to have learned something she can put to use.

I don't begrudge her at all, just pointing out that her public positions generated the revenue nothing that she personally accomplished. Let's just face it, you don't care about her lack of positive results and accomplishments and will vote for her simply because she is a woman and a Democrat. You could murder someone on TV in plain site and it wouldn't matter to you?
 
Re: Devout Hillary Supporters

As the New York Times Editorial Staff said in its endorsement:


Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination.

Voters have the chance to
choose one of the most broadly
and deeply qualified presidential
candidates in modern history.


The entire article is worth reading:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-endorsement.html

Again, your idea of qualifications are positions held not the lack of positive accomplishments in those positions
 
Re: Devout Hillary Supporters

Again, your idea of qualifications are positions held not the lack of positive accomplishments in those positions

Take it up with The New York Times, Conservative.

My guess you can no more accept any accomplishments of Hillary Clinton than you can acknowledge being wrong about anything.
 
Re: Devout Hillary Supporters

There are all sorts of questions that ALL POLITICIANS should be able to provide...

...but any competent opposition can find fault with the answers and describe them as non-answers.

Hillary Clinton has indicated that nothing of what she did...was illegal...and nearly as we know right now, none was.

Using her personal server may not have been her best move...but I defy anyone here to find a candidate for any office who has never made a move that was not the best move.

Personally, I think there is NO THERE THERE on the Benghazi or Email nonsense.

She is a competent woman...and, as the article stated, one of the most qualified candidates ever to run for the office.

I certainly hope she is elected...and I can understand the feelings of those who hope that she is not.

Personally? Because she is a woman, because she is a Democrat, because she has told you therefore nothing really matters. It doesn't matter that she is a liar, that she is a manipulator, that she is untrustworthy, that she has no leadership skills, no executive experience, no positive accomplishments, YOU THINK she would be a good President. Glad you didn't work in my company because your thinking would bankrupt us
 
Re: Devout Hillary Supporters

Take it up with The New York Times, Conservative.

My guess you can no more accept any accomplishments of Hillary Clinton than you can acknowledge being wrong about anything.

Imagine that, an OP ED piece in the NYT, one of the most liberal papers in the nation. Guess actual research into her record doesn't matter to you nor do the scores of articles about her so called accomplishments.
 
Re: Devout Hillary Supporters

I don't understand how anyone can be a 'Devout ______ Supporter', period. Even I'm willing to admit that Bernie Sanders is wrong on many things. Most politicians today truly are just pathetic excuses compared to the greats like Eisenhower, Kennedy, FDR and many others...
 
Re: Devout Hillary Supporters

Personally? Because she is a woman, because she is a Democrat, because she has told you therefore nothing really matters. It doesn't matter that she is a liar, that she is a manipulator, that she is untrustworthy, that she has no leadership skills, no executive experience, no positive accomplishments, YOU THINK she would be a good President. Glad you didn't work in my company because your thinking would bankrupt us


I think she is a woman of fine accomplishments (none of which you can acknowledge)...and I think she is going to make a terrific president.

I also think she is going to stick in the craw of people like you...which will provide entertainment.

You are not a glad about me not working for your company...as I am glad about me not working for your company.
 
Re: Devout Hillary Supporters

Imagine that, an OP ED piece in the NYT, one of the most liberal papers in the nation. Guess actual research into her record doesn't matter to you nor do the scores of articles about her so called accomplishments.

A fine newspaper with an excellent opinion section.

I think she will make a fine president.
 
Re: Devout Hillary Supporters

I don't understand how anyone can be a 'Devout ______ Supporter', period. Even I'm willing to admit that Bernie Sanders is wrong on many things. Most politicians today truly are just pathetic excuses compared to the greats like Eisenhower, Kennedy, FDR and many others...

Very simple, a private sector manager with successes and failures as a CEO, Manager, Executive of the largest Capitalistic economy in the world. His experience and not beholding to anyone is very attractive and is exactly what this country needs today
 
Re: Devout Hillary Supporters

I think she is a woman of fine accomplishments (none of which you can acknowledge)...and I think she is going to make a terrific president.

I also think she is going to stick in the craw of people like you...which will provide entertainment.

You are not a glad about me not working for your company...as I am glad about me not working for your company.

Of course that is what you think even though you cannot post the actual positive accomplishments you say she has. Pardon me for not THINKING much of your opinions

Fortunately I live in TX and have many choices of TV stations so I don't have to watch her. It really is a shame that she will be CIC though based upon what the military thinks of her
 
Re: Devout Hillary Supporters

Very simple, a private sector manager with successes and failures as a CEO, Manager, Executive of the largest Capitalistic economy in the world. His experience and not beholding to anyone is very attractive and is exactly what this country needs today

I respect your right to support someone like Donald Trump...although I think he is a person who, if elected, would bring humiliation to America.

I do not dislike the guy...I just think he would make a terrible president...and the thought of him being the face of America on the world stage makes me want to puke.

But don't get me wrong...you sound like he kind of person who should be supporting him.
 
Back
Top Bottom