I'm Back From Eternal Exile In the Black Desert of Despair!

[TotalyMeow]

Why vote for him if you think he'll be a bad president? If HRC does beat Sanders HRC is clearly more qualified and rational even if she is the establishment Dem candidate. She may be Nixonian and committed a misdemeanor open-government law when she set up a private e-mail server but at least she's not insane.

Like I said earlier, I haven't voted for him yet. And, in fact, I would vote for someone else if I saw someone else worth voting for. However, I will never vote for Hillary, she's a horrible person, a terrible leader, and a criminal. If Trump isn't that great I think she's still worse, much worse. And I just have this gut feeling that Trump will do well, that he'll be a better president than expected and might even help this country out of the hole the last couple presidents have put us in. I have no evidence for this feeling, it's just my intuition. Will I vote for him if he does run for president? It's too soon to decide.

General remarks about Muslims being peaceful, beautiful people.

Besides the absolute nuttery of asking people who apply for student visa's or tourism visas their religion rejecting applicants for citizenship, refugee status or legal permanent residency (husbands or wives of citizens) is against the equal protection clause as shown by the modern rejection of the Chinese exclusion laws (1890's laws rejecting all immigrants or applications for citizenship from members of the Chinese race). Race, religion and sex are now protected from bias under federal law.

Muslims in general ARE NOT very angry towards non-muslims. They ARE very angry towards specific and fundamental foreign policy aspects to western countries (Illegal Iraq war, threatened war with Iran, War in Lebanon, support of Jewish West-bank settlements, support of India over Pakistani territorial claims, military and monetary support of non-democratic dictatorships and monarchies throughout the region and many, many other rational reasons). Most Muslims don't want to hurt America. We have 3.5 million Muslims living in America now. They do not hate America. If you include the thousands of people killed by white supremacists and the KKK during the Jim Crow era, Evangelical-Baptists have killed more people in America than Muslims over the last 100 years. (including Oklahoma city)

Listen to what the NY Police Commissioner said today about the Muslim communities of America in response to Republican attacks on Muslims if you think Muslims should be banned from America:

http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nat ... /82141318/

Okay, I apologize for using the word 'Muslim' interchangeably with 'person from the Middle East'. In my defense, almost everyone does it, including you and most of the politicians arguing about it, and the vast majority of people immigrating from that part of the world are of the Islamic religion. But in fact, I'm talking about the immigration limitations set forth for who may or may not immigrate based on where they are in the world. Obama has been radically increasing our allotment for the Middle Eastern countries, and I think that that is unwise considering how many of the people in that part of the world WOULD like to harm us and might like to immigrate with that plan. I think the numbers should be reduced back to what they WERE just two years ago. To a level that immigration agencies can again do reasonably thorough background checks. I don't know why you're trying to change the subject away from immigration to general Muslim people who were born here, but I suspect it's because you know I'm right.

As for the anger, there IS a lot of anger in Islamic people coming from the Middle East, and there IS a lot of fellowship in the Islamic religion in general; as there is in almost any religion. There is a tendency to support people you know are wrong just because they share your beliefs. We saw that happening just a couple months ago when those three Muslim people killed a bunch of people at a party and the Islamic organizations mostly supported and defended them.

It's right there in the article I linked:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ans-119849

"A 2011 U.S. Government Accountability Office study “Criminal Alien Statistics: Information on Incarcerations, Arrests and Costs”"

The general benefits given to them (school, healthcare, etc...) is far outweighed by their contributions in taxes and low food costs to Americans. I don't know how many idiots I have to tell but illegal immigrants are not eligible for any Federal benefits at all (including Soc. Security, Medicaid, Medicare etc..) and very limited State benefits. And always remember that after your grandparents or great grandparents immigrated here they changed the rules during the Cold War to proportionally favor Western European countries, the educated, and the rich (if you are worth over 1 million dollars you qualify for fast tracked citizenship) to make it easier for them to become citizens and harder for poor Mexicans to become citizens. This is one of the many reasons why everyone is trying to change the immigration laws on both sides of the debate.

You didn't link that article before. Also, that article says that people have been calling Mexicans rapists since 1852, which is a shame, but it says nothing about any Government Accountability Office Study that you are supposedly quoting. You certainly aren't giving any support to this opinion that their being here illegally is somehow a good thing for America. So I'm just going to remind myself that you're a loon and move on.

What do you think you know about my ancestors? You have no idea what they had to go through to get here. It definitely wasn't easy for some of them, but they did it legally anyway. I see no reason not to favor some countries or types of people over others when deciding who to let move in. Just like it's perfectly reasonable for a college to only accept certain students or a business to interview before they just hire any old warm body off the street.

Trump has flat out called for protesters to be punched and said that he would pay the legal fees of anyone arrested for beating up protesters.

No, he flat out called for the people at his rally to defend themselves against protesters who were being violent. Why are these protestors being excused for their behavior anyway? Why are so many people like you approving of that behavior? It's very sad, and you're setting a bad precedent for the future.

Follow up on those volunteers place her and members of her family as members of a KKK group. Campaigns do deny members of hate groups for working for them based on the simple decent response to their calls for violence and hate towards religious and ethnic groups. If you are okay with Trump allowing members of the KKK to openly represent him over the phones then there is something seriously wrong with your moral values if you still support him.

But again, who cares what group they belong to when they are representing Trump, not trying to convert anyone to their own beliefs?

My arguments are not based on emotion or rhetorical fervor and you are supporting a racist for president. The KKK and Stormfront have both endorsed him. He has denied the KKK endorsement but is as always confused and sketchy about abjectly refusing these violent groups.

Maybe you can understand an illustration: I'm going to set up a no-kill animal shelter and am looking for donations and help doing so. A veterinarian offers to give my animals free medical care. This veterinarian approves of euthanasia in shelters as he believes that life in a cage is worse than death, but he wants to support me because he thinks maybe I'll change my mind about the 'no kill'. I know I won't change my mind, but will I turn down his help just because I think killing puppies is a horrible thing to do and I very much do not agree with his philosophy? Isn't medical care for my poor animals worth more than whether or not I agree with this guy's principles?

Furthermore, on an individual level, do I ask every person who offers to donate or otherwise help me what their stance is on killing puppies? Is Trump's campaign required to ask someone if they are a supporter of a hate group before they let them volunteer for them? Isn't that a violation of privacy, like asking someone if they are gay or what their religion is?

Donald Trump's father Fred Trump was a member of the New York state KKK and was once arrested at one of their rallies:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/f ... t-1927-kkk

You think the family should be held responsible for what one member does? This isn't that kind of country, but it's chilling that you use this as an argument.

Always remember that Donald Trump himself has been sued by the Justice department multiple times for refusing to rent to Blacks and Latinos and denying their constitutional rights.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/2 ... 55553.html
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/how-a- ... an-7380462

These are things that happened 40 years ago. You have nothing more recent? A lot can change in 40 years. People, laws, places, records. And even that article you posted seems to be indicating that Trump was being harassed by the Justice department in this case, that his rental company (not even actually he) was accused, but there was no trial or conviction. I suppose more research could be in order to find out the details, but 40 years, I just don't care enough.

His security teams are now pulling out black and latino attendees to his rallies or assigning them to seating close to doors so as to easily facilitate their removal if they do turn out to be protesters.

Because a lot of the protestors have been black or Latino? Are you saying this is not a sensible thing to do? Racism is not the same thing as changing your behavior based on actual experience.

It talks about his rejection of gathering a Foreign policy team and his absolute narcissism as he describes how he "consults himself" and his "good brain."

It talks about his refusal to tell anyone who he is consulting besides his own opinions. Who cares of he's narcissistic? How many famous people aren't?

Here's some more great quotes from Trump about women:

1. On rival Republican candidate Carly Fiorina:

"Look at that face. Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that? The face of our next president? I mean, she's a woman, and I'm not supposed to say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?"

2. On Hillary Clinton's presidential ambitions:

"If Hillary Clinton can't satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America?"

3. On the owner of Huffington Post, Arianna Huffington:

"Ariana Huffington is unattractive both inside and out. I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man – he made a good decision."

4. Or how about the time that he sent New York Times writer and reporter Gail Collins a copy of her column with “The Face of a Dog!” written over it.

5. Here's an extended list including interviews of his misogyny:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski ... .pfnpnLez9

Okay. 1) Harsh, but so what? He also called Rubio "Little Marco". I think he spreads his insults fairly evenly. 2) I laughed. 3) I laughed again. 4) The correct response to this is: Lol, are you five?. 5) Yes, I've seen that list and other, much more comprehensive ones, but again, he insults men too. He insults everyone. Equally.

Honestly, as a women (or supposedly)

Lol, you are such a little *****.

I don't know how you don't feel physically ill when you read these things he's said and then think about how high he's gotten in the Republican primaries. I know I do.

Because he is an equal opportunity bastard, unlike you. You're marching around here trying to stir me up telling me that I should have no self confidence but what other people give me. That I should be insulted that Trump would call a woman ugly or speak openly about how he feels about feminine beauty. Let the man have his damn opinions about whoever he wants and let him speak them openly about them if that's what he wants to do. If the women he mentions feel insulted by that, well, they should remember that being treated equally doesn't mean being treated better. Then they should point at laugh at the small animal nesting on his head and see if he turns red.

Just wait until you start reading and hearing about Trump's ties to both the Italian and Russian mobs:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/28/how ... o-the-mob/

Or the time he bribed a mayor to build a casino:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... mayor.html

Or the time he tried to silence a journalist by trying to bribe him with an apartment:

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/behind ... mp-7380534
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/way ... 85030bb2d5

Sure, I'll read your articles.

Well you just said that you'd vote for him?

"I'm favoring Trump in part because he IS different, though that is not the only reason."

that sounds like support.

As for the rest of MM. I don't know about Marp, he seems apolitical. JC seems to support the "idea" of trump and Dallane is of course not coming out and saying it but his conservative politics is well known. This is another reason you guys need another mod voice on the forum.

I'm favoring him over Hillary, yes. If it comes to that, and I think it will, maybe I will vote for Trump. I know I'm not at all impressed by either of the Democratic candidates. It's probably too late to hope for a sudden independent.

It boggles my mind that you feel like the ability to enforce forum rules has anything at all to do with political affiliation, and is another reason why when I do have enough work for another mod, you will not be the one.

I think that the American people in all of their stupidity and fear would act irrationally and without reason and possibly vote in Trump as a negative response to the perceived failure of Obama and HRC to stop said terrorist attack or major economic downturn. The economy already looks like it'll keep growing until November and China and even Brazil look like they're not going to be as bad as all that fuss Obama fixed in 2008. It's already being reported by the CIA and the FBI that ISIS is planning to try and disrupt the election in Trump's favor with multiple attacks so as to help his campaign and hurt HRC and Obama. So he has that going for him.

I searched, but I only found this:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/ ... -refugees/

It mentions that ISIS is planning attacks, but not that they are planning to attack in a way that somehow supports Trump. I think you've made it up.

[Claeyt]

Why vote for him if you think he'll be a bad president? If HRC does beat Sanders HRC is clearly more qualified and rational even if she is the establishment Dem candidate. She may be Nixonian and committed a misdemeanor open-government law when she set up a private e-mail server but at least she's not insane.

Like I said earlier, I haven't voted for him yet. And, in fact, I would vote for someone else if I saw someone else worth voting for. However, I will never vote for Hillary, she's a horrible person, a terrible leader, and a criminal. If Trump isn't that great I think she's still worse, much worse. And I just have this gut feeling that Trump will do well, that he'll be a better president than expected and might even help this country out of the hole the last couple presidents have put us in. I have no evidence for this feeling, it's just my intuition. Will I vote for him if he does run for president? It's too soon to decide.

Why do you think she's a horrible person or a criminal? Because the massively partisan Benghazi committee said so? Did you watch the hearings because I did. They were a travesty of anything congress has done before. She hasn't been charged with any crime, ever. She and her advisers are under criminal investigation by the FBI for setting up a private email server. My governor, Scott Walker was under investigation for basically the same thing. Several of his advisers were convicted at the state level and the FBI was involved. He was never charged. All comparable crimes to HRC's where government officials failed to protect possible... POSSIBLE classified material have led to misdemeanor charges at most. I doubt she will even be charged. David Petraeus, the former CIA director just accepted a misdemeanor charge (with probabtion) for a much, much worse breach of security when he lent his private email to his mistress so that she could use them to write her book and report on subjects pertaining to the CIA. HRC's email's have proven to be of barely any value of a classified nature. All of them have been released publicly but 6 if I'm not mistaken so they're of really low value. The possibility of a crime also exists in if she or her advisers knew it was a crime to set up a private email server. She wasn't secret about it and the FBI has stated that similar if smaller options were set up by former cabinet members before her. I highly doubt anyone will face charges and it'll all be over by June.

That being said I hate her ties to Wall Street and the Clintons connections to power. They ARE the establishment. I can dislike them for that and view them as bad for taking money and hope that Bernie wins out but I can't call her a criminal because she isn't one (yet). I do respect her for being an okay Sec. of State. She was right on Libya and has very, very good relations with many leaders in Europe. I dislike her for her trade policies immensely and her past labor actions but she did lead the fight for health care reform in the 90's and I respect her for that. Overall I think she'd probably be a very, very effective if disliked leader much like a Nixon, Merkel or her husband Bill Clinton. I plan on voting for her in the fall based on that effectiveness alone. She has her core base of women, minorities and the establishment and I'll respectively disagree with her on some issues.

...and that being said. GO BERNIE GO!

General remarks about Muslims being peaceful, beautiful people.

Besides the absolute nuttery of asking people who apply for student visa's or tourism visas their religion rejecting applicants for citizenship, refugee status or legal permanent residency (husbands or wives of citizens) is against the equal protection clause as shown by the modern rejection of the Chinese exclusion laws (1890's laws rejecting all immigrants or applications for citizenship from members of the Chinese race). Race, religion and sex are now protected from bias under federal law.

Muslims in general ARE NOT very angry towards non-muslims. They ARE very angry towards specific and fundamental foreign policy aspects to western countries (Illegal Iraq war, threatened war with Iran, War in Lebanon, support of Jewish West-bank settlements, support of India over Pakistani territorial claims, military and monetary support of non-democratic dictatorships and monarchies throughout the region and many, many other rational reasons). Most Muslims don't want to hurt America. We have 3.5 million Muslims living in America now. They do not hate America. If you include the thousands of people killed by white supremacists and the KKK during the Jim Crow era, Evangelical-Baptists have killed more people in America than Muslims over the last 100 years. (including Oklahoma city)

Listen to what the NY Police Commissioner said today about the Muslim communities of America in response to Republican attacks on Muslims if you think Muslims should be banned from America:

http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nat ... /82141318/

Okay, I apologize for using the word 'Muslim' interchangeably with 'person from the Middle East'. In my defense, almost everyone does it, including you and most of the politicians arguing about it, and the vast majority of people immigrating from that part of the world are of the Islamic religion. But in fact, I'm talking about the immigration limitations set forth for who may or may not immigrate based on where they are in the world. Obama has been radically increasing our allotment for the Middle Eastern countries, and I think that that is unwise considering how many of the people in that part of the world WOULD like to harm us and might like to immigrate with that plan. I think the numbers should be reduced back to what they WERE just two years ago. To a level that immigration agencies can again do reasonably thorough background checks. I don't know why you're trying to change the subject away from immigration to general Muslim people who were born here, but I suspect it's because you know I'm right.

As for the anger, there IS a lot of anger in Islamic people coming from the Middle East, and there IS a lot of fellowship in the Islamic religion in general; as there is in almost any religion. There is a tendency to support people you know are wrong just because they share your beliefs. We saw that happening just a couple months ago when those three Muslim people killed a bunch of people at a party and the Islamic organizations mostly supported and defended them.

You are absolutely wrong and I know it.

People in the Middle East don't hate us either. They hate some of our past policies that I mentioned above (supporting dictators, Islamic fundamentalists against the Soviet Union and all powerful monarchs in Iran and Saudi Arabia, killing 100,000 civilians in Iraq, going to war with Iran 2 times)

He hasn't raised any quotas. That's right wing talk radio nonsense The quotas are based on population and I believe can only be changed by congress. He can set the numbers on refugees and he's only allowing 10,000 which is half of what Canada has already accepted. Germany has accepted 800,000 in comparison.

The Islamic communities of Southern California utterly rejected the killers. Where are you getting your nonsense from?

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local ... 71991.html
http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/12/mu ... -families/
http://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/arizon ... 0116-story

I could literally post hundreds of links like these where the islamic communities came out in support of law enforcement and the victims.

It's right there in the article I linked:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ans-119849

"A 2011 U.S. Government Accountability Office study “Criminal Alien Statistics: Information on Incarcerations, Arrests and Costs”"

The general benefits given to them (school, healthcare, etc...) is far outweighed by their contributions in taxes and low food costs to Americans. I don't know how many idiots I have to tell but illegal immigrants are not eligible for any Federal benefits at all (including Soc. Security, Medicaid, Medicare etc..) and very limited State benefits. And always remember that after your grandparents or great grandparents immigrated here they changed the rules during the Cold War to proportionally favor Western European countries, the educated, and the rich (if you are worth over 1 million dollars you qualify for fast tracked citizenship) to make it easier for them to become citizens and harder for poor Mexicans to become citizens. This is one of the many reasons why everyone is trying to change the immigration laws on both sides of the debate.

You didn't link that article before. Also, that article says that people have been calling Mexicans rapists since 1852, which is a shame, but it says nothing about any Government Accountability Office Study that you are supposedly quoting. You certainly aren't giving any support to this opinion that their being here illegally is somehow a good thing for America. So I'm just going to remind myself that you're a loon and move on.

What do you think you know about my ancestors? You have no idea what they had to go through to get here. It definitely wasn't easy for some of them, but they did it legally anyway. I see no reason not to favor some countries or types of people over others when deciding who to let move in. Just like it's perfectly reasonable for a college to only accept certain students or a business to interview before they just hire any old warm body off the street.

Latinos can—and better—rage at the cheap political points earned by sliming Mexicans with the rapist stereotype. And the best way to do it is with the truth: A 2011 U.S. Government Accountability Office study “Criminal Alien Statistics: Information on Incarcerations, Arrests and Costs” found that of the three million arrests of immigrants, legal or not, examined by investigators, only two percent were for sex offenses—two percent too many, but hardly an epidemic. It didn’t break down the ethnicity or legal status of the offenders, but the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) National Crime Victimization Survey breaks down such stats by victims. For 2013 (the most recent year available), it shows that whites accounted for 71 percent of all sexual assaults documented (above their total percentage of 63 percent of the U.S. population), while Latinos accounted for 9 percent, far below their total percentage of 17 percent.

It's right there in the article? Here's the quote.

Do you know the history of how immigration has changed in America and how the quota system favors Western Europe? Immigration has changed dramatically since our ancestors came here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... ted_States

Trump has flat out called for protesters to be punched and said that he would pay the legal fees of anyone arrested for beating up protesters.

No, he flat out called for the people at his rally to defend themselves against protesters who were being violent. Why are these protestors being excused for their behavior anyway? Why are so many people like you approving of that behavior? It's very sad, and you're setting a bad precedent for the future.

Follow up on those volunteers place her and members of her family as members of a KKK group. Campaigns do deny members of hate groups for working for them based on the simple decent response to their calls for violence and hate towards religious and ethnic groups. If you are okay with Trump allowing members of the KKK to openly represent him over the phones then there is something seriously wrong with your moral values if you still support him.

But again, who cares what group they belong to when they are representing Trump, not trying to convert anyone to their own beliefs?

You are going to vote for a candidate who allows racists like this to campaign for him and work for him? I just lost a little more respect for you.

My arguments are not based on emotion or rhetorical fervor and you are supporting a racist for president. The KKK and Stormfront have both endorsed him. He has denied the KKK endorsement but is as always confused and sketchy about abjectly refusing these violent groups.

Maybe you can understand an illustration: I'm going to set up a no-kill animal shelter and am looking for donations and help doing so. A veterinarian offers to give my animals free medical care. This veterinarian approves of euthanasia in shelters as he believes that life in a cage is worse than death, but he wants to support me because he thinks maybe I'll change my mind about the 'no kill'. I know I won't change my mind, but will I turn down his help just because I think killing puppies is a horrible thing to do and I very much do not agree with his philosophy? Isn't medical care for my poor animals worth more than whether or not I agree with this guy's principles?

Furthermore, on an individual level, do I ask every person who offers to donate or otherwise help me what their stance is on killing puppies? Is Trump's campaign required to ask someone if they are a supporter of a hate group before they let them volunteer for them? Isn't that a violation of privacy, like asking someone if they are gay or what their religion is?

You're comparing the KKK and Stormfront to Veterinarians in this illistration? The proper comparison would be comparing them to people who run a dog fighting ring, or people who film cruelty to animals for snuff videos or fetish videos, or people who have sex with animals, not vets. And yes, you should absolutely reject any support or help from people like that no matter what. It's not a violation of privacy to not allow racists to work for your campaign. You're comparing being gay to hiding your activities in the KKK? Do you even proof read your comments?

Donald Trump's father Fred Trump was a member of the New York state KKK and was once arrested at one of their rallies:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/f ... t-1927-kkk

You think the family should be held responsible for what one member does? This isn't that kind of country, but it's chilling that you use this as an argument.

Yes, yes I do, as long as he keeps using him as one of his inspirations for who he is as a man.

Always remember that Donald Trump himself has been sued by the Justice department multiple times for refusing to rent to Blacks and Latinos and denying their constitutional rights.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/2 ... 55553.html
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/how-a- ... an-7380462

These are things that happened 40 years ago. You have nothing more recent? A lot can change in 40 years. People, laws, places, records. And even that article you posted seems to be indicating that Trump was being harassed by the Justice department in this case, that his rental company (not even actually he) was accused, but there was no trial or conviction. I suppose more research could be in order to find out the details, but 40 years, I just don't care enough.

He settled, payed a Hyuuuge fine and opened his rental information to the anti-defamation league and the City of New York.

His security teams are now pulling out black and latino attendees to his rallies or assigning them to seating close to doors so as to easily facilitate their removal if they do turn out to be protesters.

Because a lot of the protestors have been black or Latino? Are you saying this is not a sensible thing to do? Racism is not the same thing as changing your behavior based on actual experience.

It's a sensible thing to do if you don't want brown people supporting you. No other candidate does it based on race.

It talks about his rejection of gathering a Foreign policy team and his absolute narcissism as he describes how he "consults himself" and his "good brain."

It talks about his refusal to tell anyone who he is consulting besides his own opinions. Who cares of he's narcissistic? How many famous people aren't?

I don't want the President of the United States to be a narcissist. Obama's not a narcissist. In fact I don't think any other candidate I can think of has reached the lofty heights of narcissism that Trump has achieved.

Here's some more great quotes from Trump about women:

1. On rival Republican candidate Carly Fiorina:

"Look at that face. Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that? The face of our next president? I mean, she's a woman, and I'm not supposed to say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?"

2. On Hillary Clinton's presidential ambitions:

"If Hillary Clinton can't satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America?"

3. On the owner of Huffington Post, Arianna Huffington:

"Ariana Huffington is unattractive both inside and out. I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man – he made a good decision."

4. Or how about the time that he sent New York Times writer and reporter Gail Collins a copy of her column with “The Face of a Dog!” written over it.

5. Here's an extended list including interviews of his misogyny:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski ... .pfnpnLez9

Okay. 1) Harsh, but so what? He also called Rubio "Little Marco". I think he spreads his insults fairly evenly. 2) I laughed. 3) I laughed again. 4) The correct response to this is: Lol, are you five?. 5) Yes, I've seen that list and other, much more comprehensive ones, but again, he insults men too. He insults everyone. Equally.

So why would you wan't a 5 year old narcissist who says **** like this to be President. It's bigoted, it's misogynistic and it's exactly what Paul Ryan was talking about today when he said he "worried about the debasement of political discourse".

Honestly, as a women (or supposedly)

Lol, you are such a little *****.

Whatever Mereni.

memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=14277

I don't know how you don't feel physically ill when you read these things he's said and then think about how high he's gotten in the Republican primaries. I know I do.

Because he is an equal opportunity bastard, unlike you. You're marching around here trying to stir me up telling me that I should have no self confidence but what other people give me. That I should be insulted that Trump would call a woman ugly or speak openly about how he feels about feminine beauty. Let the man have his damn opinions about whoever he wants and let him speak them openly about them if that's what he wants to do. If the women he mentions feel insulted by that, well, they should remember that being treated equally doesn't mean being treated better. Then they should point at laugh at the small animal nesting on his head and see if he turns red.

...and let honor, decency, and the decorum of the Presidency be DAMNED!!!

Just wait until you start reading and hearing about Trump's ties to both the Italian and Russian mobs:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/28/how ... o-the-mob/

Or the time he bribed a mayor to build a casino:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... mayor.html

Or the time he tried to silence a journalist by trying to bribe him with an apartment:

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/behind ... mp-7380534
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/way ... 85030bb2d5

Sure, I'll read your articles.

Well you just said that you'd vote for him?

"I'm favoring Trump in part because he IS different, though that is not the only reason."

that sounds like support.

As for the rest of MM. I don't know about Marp, he seems apolitical. JC seems to support the "idea" of trump and Dallane is of course not coming out and saying it but his conservative politics is well known. This is another reason you guys need another mod voice on the forum.

I'm favoring him over Hillary, yes. If it comes to that, and I think it will, maybe I will vote for Trump. I know I'm not at all impressed by either of the Democratic candidates. It's probably too late to hope for a sudden independent.

It boggles my mind that you feel like the ability to enforce forum rules has anything at all to do with political affiliation, and is another reason why when I do have enough work for another mod, you will not be the one.

It boggles me that you would support a clown like Trump over a women who has at least proven herself capable of working at the highest levels of government effectively. You're an idiot for supporting him.

...and I will too be a mod someday. JC loves me and gave us all Lucky shirts and pants to prove it. If I've learned anything since you guys bought the game it's that if I act enough like Dallane used to, you'll make me a mod just to shut me up. You guys hated him once to. REMEMBER GH!!! ***** THE TREATY!!!

I think that the American people in all of their stupidity and fear would act irrationally and without reason and possibly vote in Trump as a negative response to the perceived failure of Obama and HRC to stop said terrorist attack or major economic downturn. The economy already looks like it'll keep growing until November and China and even Brazil look like they're not going to be as bad as all that fuss Obama fixed in 2008. It's already being reported by the CIA and the FBI that ISIS is planning to try and disrupt the election in Trump's favor with multiple attacks so as to help his campaign and hurt HRC and Obama. So he has that going for him.

I searched, but I only found this:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/ ... -refugees/

It mentions that ISIS is planning attacks, but not that they are planning to attack in a way that somehow supports Trump. I think you've made it up.

Watch and learn.

[Strakknuva225]

jesus christ, is this the reckoning of the wall of text

[Claeyt]

jesus christ, is this the reckoning of the wall of text

I always leave an out (or Den) in my threads. Whenever you get bored of reading click on my picture of 2 witches water-skiing on page 1 of this thread for a break.

[TotalyMeow]

Scott Walker was under investigation for basically the same thing. Several of his advisers were convicted at the state level and the FBI was involved. He was never charged. ... I doubt she will even be charged.

Indeed, government corruption is a sad, sad thing.

People in the Middle East don't hate us either.

What world are you living in? One of those alternate timelines you're so fond of?

He hasn't raised any quotas. That's right wing talk radio nonsense The quotas are based on population and I believe can only be changed by congress. He can set the numbers on refugees and he's only allowing 10,000 which is half of what Canada has already accepted. Germany has accepted 800,000 in comparison.

Quotas definitely have been raised and are continuing to rise for immigrants from that area:

http://www.voanews.com/content/us-to-re ... 72001.html

This article says 85k to 100k people with a minimum of 10k from Syria.

The Islamic communities of Southern California utterly rejected the killers. Where are you getting your nonsense from?

So you've forgotten that entire thread now. Okay.

Latinos can—and better—rage at the cheap political points earned by sliming Mexicans with the rapist stereotype. And the best way to do it is with the truth: A 2011 U.S. Government Accountability Office study “Criminal Alien Statistics: Information on Incarcerations, Arrests and Costs” found that of the three million arrests of immigrants, legal or not, examined by investigators, only two percent were for sex offenses—two percent too many, but hardly an epidemic. It didn’t break down the ethnicity or legal status of the offenders, but the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) National Crime Victimization Survey breaks down such stats by victims. For 2013 (the most recent year available), it shows that whites accounted for 71 percent of all sexual assaults documented (above their total percentage of 63 percent of the U.S. population), while Latinos accounted for 9 percent, far below their total percentage of 17 percent.

Sure, but I've never argued that Mexicans are rapists. I've argued that illegal immigrants are not a good thing.

Do you know the history of how immigration has changed in America and how the quota system favors Western Europe? Immigration has changed dramatically since our ancestors came here.

But it doesn't matter. It's not okay to just break the law and it's not okay to condone this breaking of the law. It's okay to change the laws, but STILL every illegal immigrant should be deported back where they came from until such time as they can come here legally.

Follow up on those volunteers place her and members of her family as members of a KKK group. Campaigns do deny members of hate groups for working for them based on the simple decent response to their calls for violence and hate towards religious and ethnic groups. If you are okay with Trump allowing members of the KKK to openly represent him over the phones then there is something seriously wrong with your moral values if you still support him.

So, you're claiming that these people are saying "Hi, I'm a member of the KKK and I support Trump, you should vote for him!"? I highly doubt it. There is something seriously wrong with YOUR moral values if you think that Trump, or any other political candidate, should be held responsible for the views or beliefs of every volunteer making phone calls for him/her.

You're comparing the KKK and Stormfront to Veterinarians in this illistration? The proper comparison would be comparing them to people who run a dog fighting ring, or people who film cruelty to animals for snuff videos or fetish videos, or people who have sex with animals, not vets. And yes, you should absolutely reject any support or help from people like that no matter what. It's not a violation of privacy to not allow racists to work for your campaign. You're comparing being gay to hiding your activities in the KKK? Do you even proof read your comments?

I was trying to simplify, don't read too much into it. So, your answer is no, you would not accept help for your cause from anyone who disagrees with your beliefs. That's not true of everyone, and especially not true of political campaigns. Sorry to have to tell you that. Additionally, Trump HAS denounced groups like the KKK and said he doesn't want their endorsement. If they claim to like him anyway, I don't see that as a reason to hate him. They're always going to like somebody.

And again, on the level of individuals, I just don't think they ask about people's beliefs before letting them volunteer. Are they even allowed to? This is my question, which you try to twist again, Are they even allowed to ask such questions of a private nature? I did not say that gay people are the same thing as hate groups. Geez.

It's a sensible thing to do if you don't want brown people supporting you. No other candidate does it based on race.

Brown... people? Whatever, the other candidates don't have violent protestors shutting down their rallies.

I don't think any other candidate I can think of has reached the lofty heights of narcissism that Trump has achieved.

Maybe not, lol.

So why would you wan't a 5 year old narcissist who says **** like this to be President. It's bigoted, it's misogynistic and it's exactly what Paul Ryan was talking about today when he said he "worried about the debasement of political discourse".

I prefer him over Hilary or Bernie right now. I have never said I WANT him as president.

Whatever Mereni.

I don't get it, you imply that I'm a man or something and then you... what? Compare me to someone you don't like? If you're trying to insult me, you're being too obscure.

...and let honor, decency, and the decorum of the Presidency be DAMNED!!!

DAMN STRAIGHT!
I can be obnoxious too, yes. But seriously, honor, decency, decorum? When was the last time our president had those things? Roosevelt maybe? Maybe not that far back, but you'd have to go a way.

It boggles me that you would support a clown like Trump over a women who has at least proven herself capable of working at the highest levels of government effectively.

I don't think she's done a good job at all though.

[Tomki]

It's fruitless to post any rational arguments when someone uses deception, ignorance, made-up statistics, false accusations, biased sources, insults and rejection as their forum weapons. But I don't think we can turn any people here to vote against their judgement.. Let the democracy win

[Claeyt]

Scott Walker was under investigation for basically the same thing. Several of his advisers were convicted at the state level and the FBI was involved. He was never charged. ... I doubt she will even be charged.

Indeed, government corruption is a sad, sad thing.

There's a difference between the 2. In Walker's case, his advisers intentionally set it up to avoid open government laws. In HRC's case they openly set it up to try and control her email secrecy. We'll see if they broke any laws by intentionally setting it up but they were not hiding it. They thought they were lawful in setting it up whereas Walker's advisers knew they were breaking the law. Again, I don't think HRC has broken the law.

People in the Middle East don't hate us either.

What world are you living in? One of those alternate timelines you're so fond of?

I'm living on the planet where fear and distrust of other peoples doesn't irrationally rule my mind. Have you ever actually talked to anyone from the middle-east. Most of them don't hate us and wish their countries were more like ours'. They're fighting against dictatorship and theocracy.

He hasn't raised any quotas. That's right wing talk radio nonsense The quotas are based on population and I believe can only be changed by congress. He can set the numbers on refugees and he's only allowing 10,000 which is half of what Canada has already accepted. Germany has accepted 800,000 in comparison.

Quotas definitely have been raised and are continuing to rise for immigrants from that area:

http://www.voanews.com/content/us-to-re ... 72001.html

This article says 85k to 100k people with a minimum of 10k from Syria.

The IMMIGRATION quotas have definitely NOT gone up and have not been raised. This includes all visas and citizenship immigration. Like I said above, the president and the state dept. may determine the REFUGEE QUOTAS which is what that article is talking about. These are based on need and the judgement of the state dept. They are not permanent immigration statuses. Most refugees return home. If they want to stay permanently they would still have to apply through the normal immigration services. They are talking about taking in 85,000 refugees from the entire world this year. 10,000 of whom come from Syria. That article says they only raised the refugee number by 15,000 over last years number of 70,000 from around the world. These numbers are an embarrassment compared to what some countries have been willing to take in to help the greatest mass refugee crisis since WWII.

The Islamic communities of Southern California utterly rejected the killers. Where are you getting your nonsense from?

So you've forgotten that entire thread now. Okay.

I have no idea what you are talking about. What thread?

Latinos can—and better—rage at the cheap political points earned by sliming Mexicans with the rapist stereotype. And the best way to do it is with the truth: A 2011 U.S. Government Accountability Office study “Criminal Alien Statistics: Information on Incarcerations, Arrests and Costs” found that of the three million arrests of immigrants, legal or not, examined by investigators, only two percent were for sex offenses—two percent too many, but hardly an epidemic. It didn’t break down the ethnicity or legal status of the offenders, but the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) National Crime Victimization Survey breaks down such stats by victims. For 2013 (the most recent year available), it shows that whites accounted for 71 percent of all sexual assaults documented (above their total percentage of 63 percent of the U.S. population), while Latinos accounted for 9 percent, far below their total percentage of 17 percent.

Sure, but I've never argued that Mexicans are rapists. I've argued that illegal immigrants are not a good thing.

...but you're willing to vote for and support for president a man who irrationally and falsely claims based on no facts or reason that Mexicans are rapists.

Do you know the history of how immigration has changed in America and how the quota system favors Western Europe? Immigration has changed dramatically since our ancestors came here.

But it doesn't matter. It's not okay to just break the law and it's not okay to condone this breaking of the law. It's okay to change the laws, but STILL every illegal immigrant should be deported back where they came from until such time as they can come here legally.

It is always okay to break an immoral law that favors immigrants from white western European countries. If our forefathers had been denied access to America's freedom they would have been pouring over the Canadian border instead.

“An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so. Now the law of nonviolence says that violence should be resisted not by counter-violence but by nonviolence. This I do by breaking the law and by peacefully submitting to arrest and imprisonment.”
― Mahatma Gandhi, Non-violence in Peace and War 1942-49

“One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”
― Martin Luther King Jr.

Follow up on those volunteers place her and members of her family as members of a KKK group. Campaigns do deny members of hate groups for working for them based on the simple decent response to their calls for violence and hate towards religious and ethnic groups. If you are okay with Trump allowing members of the KKK to openly represent him over the phones then there is something seriously wrong with your moral values if you still support him.

So, you're claiming that these people are saying "Hi, I'm a member of the KKK and I support Trump, you should vote for him!"? I highly doubt it. There is something seriously wrong with YOUR moral values if you think that Trump, or any other political candidate, should be held responsible for the views or beliefs of every volunteer making phone calls for him/her.

That's absolutely what David Duke and Stormfront has done. They've said "hi, I'm with the KKK and I support Donald Trump." That woman had clear white power tattoos on her arms and she still works for Trump's campaign.

You're comparing the KKK and Stormfront to Veterinarians in this illistration? The proper comparison would be comparing them to people who run a dog fighting ring, or people who film cruelty to animals for snuff videos or fetish videos, or people who have sex with animals, not vets. And yes, you should absolutely reject any support or help from people like that no matter what. It's not a violation of privacy to not allow racists to work for your campaign. You're comparing being gay to hiding your activities in the KKK? Do you even proof read your comments?

I was trying to simplify, don't read too much into it. So, your answer is no, you would not accept help for your cause from anyone who disagrees with your beliefs. That's not true of everyone, and especially not true of political campaigns. Sorry to have to tell you that. Additionally, Trump HAS denounced groups like the KKK and said he doesn't want their endorsement. If they claim to like him anyway, I don't see that as a reason to hate him. They're always going to like somebody.

No, I would not accept help from someone who ran a dog fighting ring, or killed animals for snuff films, or had sex with animals if I ran a no-kill shelter. I would tell them they are evil and should stop doing what they are doing and if they said that they were continuing with their violence towards animals I'd call the police. That's in fact almost exactly what I'm doing here on this forum. I'm saying to the dog ***** Trump sycophants that they ARE wrong for following a racist, misogynist, nativist, bigot simply because they believe it's time for a change in the political order of Washington. I'm telling them dog ***** that they are wrong and need to change. The question is when will they wise up and stop ***** those dogs because Trump keeps encouraging them to ***** more and more dogs. Just because Trump says that ***** dogs will make America great again doesn't mean that he's right or for that matter... sane.

Unedited version:

No, I would not accept help from someone who believed brown people were inferior, or wanted to ban all muslims from America, or hated Mexicans if I was running for president. I would tell them they are evil and should stop doing what they are doing and if they said that they were continuing with their violence towards other people I'd call the police. That's in fact almost exactly what I'm doing here on this forum. I'm saying to the Mexican hating Trump sycophants that they ARE wrong for following a racist, misogynist, nativist, bigot simply because they believe it's time for a change in the political order of Washington. I'm telling the Mexican haters that they are wrong and need to change. The question is when will they wise up and stop hating Mexicans because Trump keeps encouraging them to irrationally blame Mexico and Mexicans for all their problems. Just because Trump says that Mexicans are to blame and getting rid of them will make America great again doesn't mean that he's right or for that matter... sane.

And again, on the level of individuals, I just don't think they ask about people's beliefs before letting them volunteer. Are they even allowed to? This is my question, which you try to twist again, Are they even allowed to ask such questions of a private nature? I did not say that gay people are the same thing as hate groups. Geez.

Of course they're allowed to disallow crazy racists from entering their volunteer center. Of course they're allowed to not have David Duke come and answer phones for Trump... but they didn't.

It's a sensible thing to do if you don't want brown people supporting you. No other candidate does it based on race.

Brown... people? Whatever, the other candidates don't have violent protestors shutting down their rallies.

Yeah... Why is that? Why don't the other candidates have brown people shutting down their rallies. What a mystery.

So why would you wan't a 5 year old narcissist who says **** like this to be President. It's bigoted, it's misogynistic and it's exactly what Paul Ryan was talking about today when he said he "worried about the debasement of political discourse".

I prefer him over Hilary or Bernie right now. I have never said I WANT him as president.

...and I think you're an idiot for preferring him over Hillary and especially Bernie as "He's categorically not qualified to be President" according to Mitt Romney and the many, many other people within the Republican party.

...and let honor, decency, and the decorum of the Presidency be DAMNED!!!

DAMN STRAIGHT!

I can be obnoxious too, yes. But seriously, honor, decency, decorum? When was the last time our president had those things? Roosevelt maybe? Maybe not that far back, but you'd have to go a way.

What are you talking about? You can say Clinton demeaned the office but Obama is downright one of the most decent men I can imagine in that job. He exudes respect and gravitas. You can't deny he's got a certain presidential prescience to him. Even though Bush was a clod at times and his policies and wars were foolish he still treated the presidency with dignity. His father even more so. I don't think you understand what I'm talking about. The presidency makes the person bigger in some way. It shows in how fast they age and how fast their hair goes gray. They seem more important once they become president. It shows in how they act and Trump does not act like he'd be a good representative of us to the world.

It boggles me that you would support a clown like Trump over a women who has at least proven herself capable of working at the highest levels of government effectively.

I don't think she's done a good job at all though.

You can disagree with some of her policies (like I do) but she has been effective in many ways. Being able to work in the Senate and being Secretary of State; these aren't small jobs. You can't deny these are jobs where you have to be able to do big things for the country as a civil servant.

It's fruitless to post any rational arguments when someone uses deception, ignorance, made-up statistics, false accusations, biased sources, insults and rejection as their forum weapons. But I don't think we can turn any people here to vote against their judgement.. Let the democracy win

You're right Tomki. I wish Tmeow would stop lying and using made up statistics and biased sources.

The insult of Donald Trump for president and the rejection of reason so as to convince herself that Trump would be presidential are really just too much. I wish she would stop also.

[Inotdead]

I wish Tmeow would stop lying and using made up statistics and biased sources

The irony

[Dallane]

If I've learned anything since you guys bought the game it's that if I act enough like Dallane used to, you'll make me a mod just to shut me up. You guys hated him once to. REMEMBER GH!!! ***** THE TREATY!!!

Yes you should strive to be more like me. Be knowledgeable about the game. Be active on the forums. I don't post like I use to because there is literally nothing going on in the game for me to do so.

There was never hate between me and the tribe. The **** talking on the forums was just more fun with the game.

You really need to re-evaluate your life and do a little growing up kermit.

[TotalyMeow]

There's a difference between the 2. In Walker's case, his advisers intentionally set it up to avoid open government laws. In HRC's case they openly set it up to try and control her email secrecy. We'll see if they broke any laws by intentionally setting it up but they were not hiding it. They thought they were lawful in setting it up whereas Walker's advisers knew they were breaking the law. Again, I don't think HRC has broken the law.

It's unlawful to put classified or top secret information out in the open where someone not qualified can see them, and a private email server is not very secure. Surely anyone in such high levels of public office knows this. You're making no sense saying that on one hand someone knew they were breaking the law but on the other they didn't so they weren't breaking a law. If there is a law against something, and you break it, it doesn't matter if you were ignorant of it's existence. It's YOUR responsibility to know what you are and aren't allowed to do.

I'm living on the planet where fear and distrust of other peoples doesn't irrationally rule my mind. Have you ever actually talked to anyone from the middle-east. Most of them don't hate us and wish their countries were more like ours'. They're fighting against dictatorship and theocracy

So... you're saying there aren't large groups of people in them Middle East who hate us, would like to hurt us, and would use the opportunity to sneak into our country while the system is overloaded trying to process the much too large numbers of people we are now accepting into the country from that area? You're saying countries like Germany aren't having trouble with the culture clash of various refugees not being able to handle the sight of a woman's ankles and are seeing higher crime rates as a result? You're saying I should be happy and pretend that just because some of the refugees will be peaceful, all of them will surely be, lalala? That I shouldn't instead question these changes and prefer that the numbers accepted stay low enough that backgrounds can be checked and fake passports discovered before it's too late? That numbers stay low enough that those coming here can at least be somewhat integrated, hopefully, and not become violent when they try to hold onto parts of their culture that just won't work here?

The IMMIGRATION quotas have definitely NOT gone up and have not been raised. This includes all visas and citizenship immigration. Like I said above, the president and the state dept. may determine the REFUGEE QUOTAS which is what that article is talking about.

So what? They're still here, now.

...but you're willing to vote for and support for president a man who irrationally and falsely claims based on no facts or reason that Mexicans are rapists.

I intend to vote for someone, anyway. It's not going to be a Democrat. Though I don't agree with everything Trump says and does, I still think he'll be a better president than either Hillary or Bernie, or the other remaining Republican candidates, for that matter. Let's not forget that the whole hash of Hillary vs Trump arguments might be moot.

It is always okay to break an immoral law that favors immigrants from white western European countries. If our forefathers had been denied access to America's freedom they would have been pouring over the Canadian border instead.

“An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so. Now the law of nonviolence says that violence should be resisted not by counter-violence but by nonviolence. This I do by breaking the law and by peacefully submitting to arrest and imprisonment.”
― Mahatma Gandhi, Non-violence in Peace and War 1942-49

“One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”
― Martin Luther King Jr.

Okay... you're insane. There is a difference between breaking a law perceived as unjust and taking the ensuing punishment in an attempt to make people aware of an injustice being committed and therefore change the law, and just breaking a law because you don't agree with it and stand to personally benefit if you get away with it. Disobeying an 'unjust law' is still a crime, and even your quote by Gandhi acknowledges that one will be arrested and imprisoned (or in this case, deported). I have argued that illegal immigrants should be deported and the law changed if it needs to be changed. Allowing them to be here, pretending it's okay so a few politicians can get votes from their legal relatives, is not justice but is itself immoral. It's also not okay to do something just because someone else said so, did you ever question that maybe Gandhi and MLK are simply wrong in this viewpoint?

I also don't see how you even can call it immoral if the US accepts more people who are qualified to work and do well than we do poor people with no skills that will likely need some form of support or another right away. It makes perfect sense. It doesn't matter if a couple hundred years ago we accepted any warm body that could manage to get on a ship bound here. This country has changed since then, the entire world has changed since then, and it is no longer possible to make a living on 40 acres and a mule.

They've said "hi, I'm with the KKK and I support Donald Trump." That woman had clear white power tattoos on her arms and she still works for Trump's campaign.

That's what they're saying on their calls to people? I think you're lying.

No, I would not accept help from someone who ran a dog fighting ring, or killed animals for snuff films, or had sex with animals if I ran a no-kill shelter. I would tell them they are evil and should stop doing what they are doing and if they said that they were continuing with their violence towards animals I'd call the police. That's in fact almost exactly what I'm doing here on this forum. I'm saying to the dog ***** Trump sycophants that they ARE wrong for following a racist, misogynist, nativist, bigot simply because they believe it's time for a change in the political order of Washington. I'm telling them dog ***** that they are wrong and need to change. The question is when will they wise up and stop ***** those dogs because Trump keeps encouraging them to ***** more and more dogs. Just because Trump says that ***** dogs will make America great again doesn't mean that he's right or for that matter... sane.

You're very disturbing.

Of course they're allowed to disallow crazy racists from entering their volunteer center. Of course they're allowed to not have David Duke come and answer phones for Trump... but they didn't.

But it's not David Duke, it's just some random woman who has a right to express her political opinion. You keep talking about fascism and how it's a bad thing, but then you turn around and have these extremely intolerant viewpoints. No one can see this woman's tattoos over the phone. She is presumably not spouting White Supremacist rhetoric over those phones, but is reading whatever script they gave her (I'm sure there is call monitoring to make sure no one is working for the opposition or some such and they would catch that).

This is what I've been referring to when I've asked if political campaigns are allowed to ask questions about whether or not someone belongs to a white supremacist group and whether or not they are allowed to discriminate based on the answers:

http://finduslaw.com/civil-rights-act-1 ... pter-21#17

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, title VII, which deals with equal opportunity employment. All things considered, I'm surprised you don't know about it. It's a heavy read, and other laws like the Age Discrimination Act have been passed as well to supplement it, so it's not all there, but explanatory articles I've read on the subject seem to indicate that it's illegal to ask any questions related to an applicant's beliefs.

Why don't the other candidates have brown people shutting down their rallies. What a mystery.

Not a mystery, pandering.

...and I think you're an idiot for preferring him over Hillary and especially Bernie as "He's categorically not qualified to be President" according to Mitt Romney and the many, many other people within the Republican party.

You really don't need to resort to name-calling. I'm perfectly willing to agree to disagree that just about anyone is better than Hillary.

The presidency makes the person bigger in some way. It shows in how fast they age and how fast their hair goes gray. They seem more important once they become president.

Then I'm sure Trump will do fine. If they all grow into the position, we've nothing to worry about.

You can disagree with some of her policies (like I do) but she has been effective in many ways. Being able to work in the Senate and being Secretary of State; these aren't small jobs. You can't deny these are jobs where you have to be able to do big things for the country as a civil servant.

She has been effectively bad in many ways. Sure those are big jobs, but just because she has done the jobs, doesn't mean she has done them well.