Anyone of two things would be reason enough to support trump:

1. To give it to Obama, as he said it is a personal insult not to vote to Clinton.
2. A country where people aren't free to speak their minds isn't a free country. Right now, only the approved speeches are allowed.
.....

 

Anyone of two things would be reason enough to support trump:

1. To give it to Obama, as he said it is a personal insult not to vote to Clinton.
2. A country where people aren't free to speak their minds isn't a free country. Right now, only the approved speeches are allowed.
.....

Kind of ironic that point number two has not been deleted, is t it?

 

Right now, only the approved speeches are allowed.

Unfortunately, what you've just said rings very true to me:

​

Translation: Giving my opinion in 2016

​

 

So is disrespecting someone in uniform assigned to the White House. Oh wait, she was the First Lady at the time.

Didn't see that one plastered all over the news. What was the issue? Still don't think it rises to what Trump did to the former Miss Universe. He did it to her 20 years ago and then dragged it out another week.

 

How would you count a "vote against someone"?
Subtract it from someone's vote for that someone?

Some places (I don't recall where) do have a "None of the above" option and if that gets the plurality of the vote then the election is voided and the seat either goes unfilled (not really an option for a presidential race) or a new election is called in which none of the original candidates may be renominated. I think that type of system has a lot to be said for it, particularly at lower levels of government.

 

Nothing to worry about, the foundation cease donations in NY for the duration of the investigation.

There are more alleged wrong doings than just the solicitations.

Contributions to an AG that was about to investigate Trump U.

A $10K painting that Trump bought with foundation money that hangs at a Trump business.

Foundation payments that are alleged to be settlements for money owed by Trump companies.

Expect the list to grow because there's a reporter investigating Trump Foundation irregularities.

There's also a Journalist investigating Trump dealings in Cuba during the Embargo. His Campaign Manager admitted that he pursued an investment, but decided not to do it. She's a lawyer and admitted that Trump spent money in Cuba during the Embargo. Apparently she thought it was just investments that were prohibited.

Then there's the issue with Trump saying he was going to make US steel companies great again, but he used cheap steel and aluminum from China. Another investigative reporter had to dig through many shell companies to trace it from China to Trump.

 

To all who would rationalize the comparative 'viability' of EITHER candidate:
With all due respect -BULL! -- Both candidates are despicable - and utterly without 'agenda' sans their own enrichment/empowerment!-- So now we're asked to chose between a swivel-headed caravel barker and a soulless sociopath!? -- Great job America!

Respectfully
HP

PS I am a US citizen who very much appreciates US culture -- hence my high degree of revulsion to the candidates

Agreed. But that doesn't change the fact that ONE of those two despicable candidates IS going to be the next president. So I have an obligation to choose, to the best of my abilities, the better of the two options (whether it is "the better" or "the less worse" is totally and completely immaterial). The way I approach an unpalatable choice like this is to consider the hypothetical case in which my vote would actually fork the universe with each candidate winning in one of the forks and my vote deciding which universe I went forward within. If I can truly say that I really have zero preference and would be completely okay with flipping a coin to decide my fate, then I become free to either not vote or to vote third party. Otherwise, I have to cast my vote for the best option available to me.

Now, if I did live in a state that was totally and completely out of play, then I become sympathetic to casting that protest vote (though I don't know that I, personally, could bring myself to do it because of my above philosophy).

 

Everyone was impressed by Clinton mastery of historical facts, numbers and attack lines in the first debate. After all, this is a lady who wrote multiple books about her historical rise to power.

Would you have believed that the same lady invoked "I don't recall" 38 times during her one and half hour interview with the FBI, about things she did a couple years back. That's more than 1 "I don't know" every 3 minutes.

Trump was stupid not to ask her to reconcile that for the voters.

 

“Don’t you think a man who has this kind of economic genius is a lot better for the United States than a woman and the only thing she’s ever produced is a lot of work for the FBI checking out her emails.”
He was not making a comment about a man being preferred over a woman, as it's being made out to be.

What if he had said,

“Don’t you think a 70-yr-old New Yorker who has this kind of economic genius is a lot better for the United States than a 68-yr-old New Yorker and the only thing she’s ever produced is a lot of work for the FBI checking out her emails.”
In hindsight, he could have chosen the word "person" instead of detailing what sexes the two persons were.

If those comments are considered racist or gender biased I most certainly am too being I named one of my little black kitties, who meows a lot, 'Oprah'.

Take it how ever you want.

 

My black kitties were named Snowflake and Marshmallow.

 

One of my lessons in life is:
When you pay money to a lawyer, you think you hired him to work for you, but he isn't. He's still working for himself.
The present governor of Florida, Rick Scott.
You might think that when he is elected to work for the people, he will, but he isn't. He's still working for himself.
That's exactly what I expect of Trump.
Is Hillary a lawyer?

Right now, I don't know whether Trump will do less harm because he isn't politically savvy.
Are there enough controls in place to keep his paw off the nuclear button?

 

Are there enough controls in place to keep his paw off the nuclear button?

While that may be the most severe of the possibilities, I think there are many, many others to be concerned about ... his "Because you print the money" statement comes to mind .

 

The so-called football might just be a prop for the sake of political theater. We can hope.

 

Did you forget to read the link in post #43?
(Don't shoot the messenger.)

I never shoot messengers. There can always be a glimmer of hope in the message.

The first paragraph of the link concurred with my thinking from the 1980s.

 

“Don’t you think a man who has this kind of economic genius is a lot better for the United States than a woman and the only thing she’s ever produced is a lot of work for the FBI checking out her emails.”
He was not making a comment about a man being preferred over a woman, as it's being made out to be.

What if he had said,

“Don’t you think a 70-yr-old New Yorker who has this kind of economic genius is a lot better for the United States than a 68-yr-old New Yorker and the only thing she’s ever produced is a lot of work for the FBI checking out her emails.”
In hindsight, he could have chosen the word "person" instead of detailing what sexes the two persons were.

Wayneh you're right! Cuz it's gotten to where slanted media twists criticism of an individual to insulting every demographic they happen to belong to

 

My black kitties were named Snowflake and Marshmallow.

I've got one grey and white stray who expects me to feed him but won't come near me, makes a load of noise about everything, tries to boss all a the other kitties around only to be totally ignored while doing it and is dumber than a box of rocks to boot. I named him 'Noisy' but maybe Obama would have been better.

 

Didn't see that one plastered all over the news. What was the issue? Still don't think it rises to what Trump did to the former Miss Universe. He did it to her 20 years ago and then dragged it out another week.

from: http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2005/07/hillarys-military-resume.html
Chief X remembers Mrs. Clinton as someone with open contempt for the military. She was instrumental in directives that (temporarily) banned the wear of military uniforms in the White House, and sought to minimize the military's presence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. As the Chief recalls, military personnel were "treated worse than janitorial help" in the Clinton White House.

I hear about the same from other sources during the Clinton Presidency. https://www.amazon.com/Dereliction-Duty-Eyewitness-Compromised-Americas/dp/0895260603 has a book written by the Officer who carried the nuclear football. His observation was contempt from the White House Staff, and that can only happen with approval of the President or the First Lady (she also had a staff).

You can also read the comments here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1029337/posts

 

a book written by the Officer who carried the nuclear football.

"Why female stewards on Air Force One had to keep their distance from the President" (Clinton)

I think I can guess the answer to that one without reading the book.

 

https://steemit.com/hillary/@conlaw...ontemptible-but-make-great-butlers-at-parties

Another blog.

I think I can guess the answer to that one without reading the book.

I'm sure you can.

I still like this:

Barack to Bill: How's Hillary?
Bill to Barack: Not as good as Monica.

 

Are there enough controls in place to keep his paw off the nuclear button?

Yes and no. A presidential launch order must be confirmed by the Secretary of Defense, but technically the SecDef does not have the authority to veto the order; they are required to simply confirm that the order actually did initiate with the President. In practice, of course, the SecDef has the option to refuse to confirm the order if they believe it to be unlawful -- at which point the President has the right to demand the immediate resignation of the SecDef, but I don't think that the SecDef is required to actually render it since, unlike the President's staff, the SecDef's appointment is confirmed by the Senate and, IIRC, they therefore do not serve "at the pleasure of the President".

Unfortunately, the nuclear controls only concern themselves with the validity of a launch order in terms of establishing that it originated from the National Command Authority and NOT with establishing that the NCA's launch order was lawful. Below that level there are several controls aimed at physically preventing any one person (or in most cases even two people acting in concert) from initiating a launch. The philosophy behind this dichotomy is that, in the scenario of a fast-escalating nuclear threat, that the decision to launch and the window in which to issue that launch order might be extremely brief (possibly measured in minutes), so there can't be any steps in the process that might prevent the order from being carried out, which limits the checks to verifying that the order actually originated with the NCA. But at the other end there are sufficient redundant weapons that safeguards against rogue elements can be put in place because while they might prevent some weapons from being released, it is highly unlikely that they will prevent enough weapons from being released to carry out the intended strike.

There was even a missileer that was discharged because he specifically asked whether there was any check in place to ensure than a launch order came from a sane president. The Board of Inquiry that heard his appeal determined that that was outside of his need to know in order to carry out his authenticated orders.

Having said that, all members of the military have an obligation to refuse to obey illegal orders -- but they don't have the right to arbitrarily question the legality of any order that comes along. It's a tightrope they walk and pits several things against each other, both legal and moral. But while an officer in a silo or on a sub is not in a position to question the legality of a launch order, others are -- in particular, the officer carrying the football. By the nature of his job he is in a position to reasonably conclude that an attempt by the President (or their successor) to initiate a launch constitutes an illegal order and to refuse to comply with it and even to actively take steps to prevent the order from being carried out. They would, of course, be buying themselves a court martial in the process, but it would depend on the facts of the case as to whether they would be convicted.