The Clinton foundation

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

isn't it .. I mean look at the effort put into theses threads when 2 people post an opposite view.. you would think the world was on fire ..

Say what you want believe what you want but dont post feelings as facts .. or stories sent to your inbox or FB

you can hate Hillary but you cant Cherry pick her public record and not acknowledge her commitment to public service but some how = bad POTUS

Does commitment trump performance. Being committed loses its flavor if you fail. How does failure=good POTUS?

love or hate the the Donald But you cant Cherry pick his success as a businessman and ignore his statements some how = good POTUS

So, can you cherry pick his statements and ignore his success?

I am an independent and have voted for R's and D's and was part of Reagans Inaugural Parade Canceled by Cold in 1984 as a young marine at 8th&I and voted for the person with the best plan for America not party ..never vote just party and this election is no different

If you voted for Reagan, you must have changed your mind about what the best plan for America is if you vote for Hilary.

As for voting for the person not just the party, in this race, of the two candidates, the one that is least affiliated with party is Trump. Hilary is the embodiment of what the Democrat Party has become. Separating her from the party doesn't leave a whole lot left in terms of what is best for the country. At least Bernie had some degree of separation.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If you voted for Reagan, you must have changed your mind about what the best plan for America is if you vote for Hilary.

As for voting for the person not just the party, in this race, of the two candidates, the one that is least affiliated with party is Trump. Hilary is the embodiment of what the Democrat Party has become. Separating her from the party doesn't leave a whole lot left in terms of what is best for the country. At least Bernie had some degree of separation.

Voting for Reagan and not voting for Trump . there is no moral equivalency . sadly the best. Plan for America is not electing Trump. Well just have to agree to disagree. On which of the 2 would be worse for America aka big picture not vs singular issues like SCJ appointments
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Voting for Reagan and not voting for Trump . there is no moral equivalency . sadly the best. Plan for America is not electing Trump. Well just have to agree to disagree. On which of the 2 would be worse for America aka big picture not vs singular issues like SCJ appointments
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

SCJ appointments are , at least to me , the single biggest issue critical to the big picture .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Voting for Reagan and not voting for Trump . there is no moral equivalency . sadly the best. Plan for America is not electing Trump. Well just have to agree to disagree. On which of the 2 would be worse for America aka big picture not vs singular issues like SCJ appointments
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The makeup of the Supreme Court is not a singular issue. As the two previous posts to this have said, it encompasses all issues. All the other so-called issues in this election are minor to it. They can all be fixed by following administrations. Most major changes in the way we are governed have had to go through the Supreme Court in order to be made law. The character and constitutional philosophy of those in the Supreme Court can permanently change how we are governed.

That you do not understand that is an indication that you think our elections are a matter of personality, not legal substance. This is a pernicious mind set that we have been conditioned into by popular and inattentive media and evasive politicians who know our weaknesses, and convince us that their niceness and goodness, and political correctness are the keys to good governance. And that hoodwinks us into disregarding and eventually not even considering that rule of law is far, far more important then their promises and personalities. It leads us into a lawless government which rules by whim and personal "interpretation."

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The makeup of the Supreme Court is not a singular issue. As the two previous posts to this have said, it encompasses all issues. All the other so-called issues in this election are minor to it. They can all be fixed by following administrations. Most major changes in the way we are governed have had to go through the Supreme Court in order to be made law. The character and constitutional philosophy of those in the Supreme Court can permanently change how we are governed.

That you do not understand that is an indication that you think our elections are a matter of personality, not legal substance. This is a pernicious mind set that we have been conditioned into by popular and inattentive media and evasive politicians who know our weaknesses, and convince us that their niceness and goodness, and political correctness are the keys to good governance. And that hoodwinks us into disregarding and eventually not even considering that rule of law is far, far more important then their promises and personalities. It leads us into a lawless government which rules by whim and personal "interpretation."

I do understand it .. But I just dont share your apocalyptic view on the matter.. if Justices are nominated by a Dem and approved by the full United States Senate .. But yet you have no issues with the GOP stone walling Obamas nomination to serve yours and their agenda and stack the court with your minions . OK