Quote:
he handed US foreign policy on a silver platter to Dick Cheney, probably because 9-11 scared the hell out of him and he just couldn't face it.
I'd like to see the facts behind that statement.
Quote:
Sanders and Trump have both traded on widespread disaffection in the American hinterland first manifested by the tea party, the sense that the 'social contract', such as it was, has been abandoned and the middle class (now have-nots) with it. There's a lot of economic misery and fear afoot. Dangerous times.
You think "widespread disaffection is limited to the "American hinterland", given that "There's a lot of economic misery and fear afoot"? You think that is limited to the middle class and rural areas? Please explain. How is there disaffection in one place yet misery and fear - lots? Aren't they both country-wide?
Trump has WAY more than Hillary's propensity to play the femme card, anyone has - he just hasn't used any of it yet. Clinton IS the war on women, but there is so much more negative to her, defeating her should be like shooting fish in a barrel.
Jason Fuller:
Quote:
Few can deny her experience in government or her credentials.
*(Actually, I can. What did she actually accomplish, other than eliminating four Americans in a foreign country?)
But what do credentials matter when you are lacking in judgement? Credentials are fine, but credentials do not illustrate a person’s behavior, attitude, or ability to perform. Sanders is right to question Hillary Clinton’s judgement on critical issues. Her previous votes to support expanded US involvement in the Middle East, as well as her strong financial ties to corrupt banks and corporations, clearly demonstrate that she does not have the integrity or decision-making capability we need in a truly strong Commander-in-Chief. Hillary Clinton is unable to make good decisions the first time; she even at one time supported Donald Trump’s border wall before adopting her currently more moderate tone on immigration policy. And while it’s certainly progress that she has seemingly “evolved” on so many issues over the years, the President of the United States often has just ONE chance to make the right decision on critical issues of national and economic security. Do we really want to elect someone who has proven time and time again that she does not have the capacity to do this?
*My comment
EDITED: 29 Apr 2016 00:45 by FIXRMAN