The Washington Post–Hillary Clinton for President


October 13, 2016

The Washington Post’s View

Hillary Clinton for President

The Washington Post editorial board endorses Hillary Clinton for President

By Editorial Board

IN THE gloom and ugliness of this political season, one encouraging truth is often overlooked: There is a well-qualified, well-prepared candidate on the ballot. Hillary Clinton has the potential to be an excellent president of the United States, and we endorse her without hesitation.

[The closing argument against Donald Trump]

In a moment, we will explain our confidence. But first, allow us to anticipate a likely question: No, we are not making this endorsement simply because Ms. Clinton’s chief opponent is dreadful.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is dreadful, that is true — uniquely unqualified as a presidential candidate. If we believed that Ms. Clinton were the lesser of two evils, we might well urge you to vote for her anyway — that is how strongly we feel about Mr. Trump. But we would also tell you that was our judgment.

Fortunately, it is not. We recognize that many Americans distrust and dislike Ms. Clinton. The negative feelings reflect in part the bitter partisanship of the nation’s politics today; in part the dishonest attacks she has been subjected to for decades; and in part her genuine flaws, missteps and weaknesses.

We are not blind to those. Ms. Clinton is inclined to circle the wagons and withhold information, from the closed meetings of her health-care panel in 1993 to the Whitewater affair, from the ostensibly personal emails she destroyed on her own say-so after leaving the State Department to her reluctance to disclose her pneumonia last month. Further, she and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, are not the first to cash in on the speech circuit, but they have done so on an unprecedented and unseemly scale. And no one will accuse Ms. Clinton of an excess of charisma: She has neither the eloquence of President Obama nor the folksy charm of former president George W. Bush or, for that matter, her husband.

But maybe, at this moment in history, that last weakness is also a strength. If Ms. Clinton is elected, she will attempt to govern an angrily divided nation, working with legislators who in many cases are determined to thwart her, while her defeated opponent quite possibly will pretend her victory is fraudulent.

What hope is there for progress in such an environment — for a way out of the gridlock that frustrates so many Americans? The temptation is to summon a “revolution,” as her chief primary opponent imagined, or promise to blow up the system, as Mr. Trump posits. Both temptations are dead ends, as Ms. Clinton understands. If progress is possible, it will be incremental and achieved with input from members of both parties. Eloquence and charm may matter less than policy chops and persistence.

It is fair to read Ms. Clinton’s career as a series of learning experiences that have prepared her well for such an environment. As first lady, she failed when she tried to radically remake the American health-care system. Instead of retreating, she reentered the fray to help enact a more modest but important reform expanding health-care access to poor children.

Her infamous “reset” with Russia offers a similar arc. We have not hesitated to criticize the Obama administration’s foreign policy, including its lukewarm support for Ukraine in the face of a Russian invasion, but criticism of the “reset” is off-base. When Ms. Clinton launched the policy, Dmitry Medvedev, not Vladimir Putin, was president of Russia, and nobody — maybe not even Mr. Putin — knew how things would play out. It was smart to test Mr. Medvedev’s willingness to cooperate, and in fact the United States and Russia made progress under Ms. Clinton’s leadership, including in nuclear-arms control and in facilitating resupply of U.S. troops in Afghanistan across Russian territory. As Mr. Putin reasserted himself and Russia became more hostile, Ms. Clinton was clear-eyed about the need to adjust U.S. policy.

She was similarly clear-eyed after winning election to the Senate in 2000. You might have expected her to hold some grudges, especially toward Republican legislators who had lambasted her husband in the most personal terms during his then-recent impeachment and Senate trial. But colleagues in both parties found her to be businesslike, knowledgeable, intent on accomplishment, willing to work across the aisle and less focused than most on getting credit.

Professionals in the State Department offer similar testimonials about her tenure as secretary during Mr. Obama’s first term: She reached out, listened to diverse points of view and, more than many politicians who come to that job with their own small teams, was open to intelligent advice. She was respected by employees and by counterparts overseas. She set priorities, including ensuring that “women’s rights are human rights” would rise from slogan to policy.

Her 2016 presidential campaign offers one more case study of lessons learned — a model of efficiency and of large egos subordinated to a larger cause — after her far less disciplined 2008 effort.

Ms. Clinton, in other words, is dogged, resilient, purposeful and smart. Unlike Mr. Clinton or Mr. Bush when they ascended, she knows Washington; unlike Mr. Obama when he ascended, she has executive experience. She does not let her feelings get in the way of the job at hand. She is well positioned to get something done.

So what would she do? Her ambitions are less lofty than we would like when it comes, for example, to reforming unsustainable entitlement programs, and than many in her party would like, in their demand, for example, for free college tuition. But most of her agenda is commendable, and parts may actually be achievable: immigration reform; increased investment in infrastructure, research and education, paid for by higher taxes on the wealthy; sounder family-leave policies; criminal-justice reform. In an era of slowing growth and growing income inequality, these all make sense, as do her support for curbing climate change and for regulating gun ownership.

Oct. 12, 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton greets supporters before speaking during a rally at the Colorado fairgrounds in Pueblo. Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post

Ms. Clinton also understands the importance of U.S. leadership in the world, her campaign-year anti-trade epiphany notwithstanding. Inside the Obama administration, Ms. Clinton was a voice for engagement on behalf of democracy, human rights and stability. At times (the surge in Afghanistan), Mr. Obama listened. At times (Syrian intervention), he did not — and the world is far more dangerous because of that. Ms. Clinton can be faulted, perhaps, for excessive loyalty; though the hyper-investigated Benghazi affair proved to be no scandal at all, Ms. Clinton should have argued more persistently to help stabilize Libya after its dictator fell.

But her foreign-policy inclinations were sounder than her president’s. It is telling that, even as she tacked left to survive the primaries, she did not give ground to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on the core value of American engagement in the world. Allies would find her more reliable than the incumbent and far more dependable than her opponent. The world would be more secure as a result.

No election is without risk. The biggest worry about a Clinton presidency, in our view, is in the sphere where she does not seem to have learned the right lessons, namely openness and accountability. Her use of a private email server as secretary was a mistake, not a high crime; but her slow, grudging explanations of it worsened the damage and insulted the voters. Her long periods of self-insulation from press questioning during the campaign do not bode well.

The Clinton Foundation has done a lot of good in the world, but Ms. Clinton was disturbingly cavalier in allowing a close aide to go on its payroll while still at State, and in failing to erect the promised impenetrable wall between the foundation and the government. She would have to do better in the White House.

Even here, however, Mr. Trump makes her look good. She has released years of tax returns. She has voluntarily identified her campaign bundlers. The Clinton Foundation actually is a charitable foundation, not a vehicle for purchasing portraits of herself. She is a paragon of transparency relative to her opponent.

Mr. Trump, by contrast, has shown himself to be bigoted, ignorant, deceitful, narcissistic, vengeful, petty, misogynistic, fiscally reckless, intellectually lazy, contemptuous of democracy and enamored of America’s enemies. As president, he would pose a grave danger to the nation and the world.

Rather than dwell on that danger here, we invite you to visit wapo.st/thecaseagainsttrump. There we have assembled a timeline of Mr. Trump’s most alarming statements, accompanied by video and linked to some of the most trenchant commentary from our columnists, guest contributors, editorial writers and cartoonists over the past 16 months. This closing argument is far from exhaustive, but it is horrifying enough. If you have any doubts about Mr. Trump’s unfitness, please take a look.

Meanwhile, Ms. Clinton underlined her fitness for office in what was essentially the first major decision of her potential presidency: her choice of Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) as running mate. Rather than calculate how best to assuage or excite this or that part of her base, Ms. Clinton selected a person of sound judgment, with executive and legislative experience and unquestionable capacity to serve as president if necessary.

That presages what Americans might reasonably expect of a Clinton presidency: seriousness of purpose and relentless commitment, even in the face of great obstacles, to achievements in the public interest. We believe that Ms. Clinton will prove a worthy example to girls who celebrate the election of America’s first female president. We believe, too, that anyone who votes for her will be able to look back, four years from now, with pride in that decision.

34 thoughts on “The Washington Post–Hillary Clinton for President

  1. Washington Post is part of US media that earns 6% (not a typo) of credibility of American public. That level credibility is even lower than that toward Congress.

    I think the only ways people outside the United States can have a well-rounded view of American politics is to see stories of all sides.

    Here is Dr. Ben Carson view on the latest situation:
    http://video.foxnews.com/v/5168743219001/dr-ben-carson-weighs-in-on-new-allegations-against-trump/?#sp=show-clips

    Here is a survey showing the concerns of Americans:
    http://video.foxnews.com/v/5167486826001/corruption-and-american-journalism-/?#sp=show-clips

    Here shows the corruption of media in the United States – and Americans know it by showing 6% trust they have for media:
    http://video.foxnews.com/v/5167486826001/corruption-and-american-journalism-/?#sp=show-clips

  2. Looks like Hillary Clinton will become the next president. But the political drama does not stop. There are talks of a House Republican already planning to impeach her.

    If Hillary Clinton is elected president of the United States, her inauguration would take place within the time frame of the statue of limitations of various alleged crimes for which she was recently investigated. If during that time frame, a majority of House members in the next Congress believe she committed injuries to the society when she “extremely carelessly” mishandled classified information, Hillary Clinton may just pull off the most historic hat trick ever executed in the realm of American politics.

  3. As the dirtiest U.S. election race in history is about to climax, it is getting even more debasing. But though the campaign spectacles will fade away in due time, economic and strategic realities will remain ever colder.

    Irrespective of the U.S. election outcome, emerging economies especially in Asia should buckle up and brace for an uncertain, volatile, and disruptive future.

    Hillary the Hawk is coming. She is no Obama, a realist who actually has a genuine liking for Asia.

  4. LaMoy, yes many people outside of the US believe in FauxNews as opposed to WSJ, NYTimes, Huffington Post, CNBC and even CNN.

  5. An obviously blatant but futile apologistic attempt that only reinforces the fact that Hillary has been a failure who seems to be on an unending learning curve. The pertinent question is whether America and more importantly, can the rest of the world, bear any more of her costly mistakes?

    A mistake as POTUS, arguably the most powerful person of the most powerful nation on Earth cannot be taken lightly with a cavalier vein. Countless numbers of lives will perish and the fates of nations smothered by the misadventures of American militaristic and subvertive interventions.

    The above article does not add up. It is somewhat outlandish if not, preposterous to launch personal attacks on one which are mostly unfounded, to over compensate for the serious trust deficit of another which on the contrary is proven.

    It will be perilous to ignore the mood of the pueblo who wants to change the status quo. On that score and at this critical point towards D Day,Trump could not be bothered if he is made to apear desolate and “dumped” by the Replubicans when he actually intends to move away from the pack of losers. He knows the American people knows the Republicans are no different from the Democrats as both are beholden to the agendas of their financial sponsors.
    It will be interesting to see who the anti neoliberal/neocon Bernie campers will vote for. Julian Assange succinctly said that choosing between Trump and Clinton is like a choice of cholera or gonorrhea. I will be more blunt to say that it is between a cnut and a real cnut. Which is which, you decide. 🙂

  6. POTUS and all the Cabinet members are always caught in a Catch-22 situation when making a decision, damn if you do and damn if you dont. The media and the opposition will always play the Monday Morning quarterback game jn analyzing decisions. So POTUS and his Cabinet have adopted this position of “its easier to seek forgiveness than to seek permission” sunce they have evaluated all information available before making the decision. Its always easy to blame POTUS or a cabinet member for making ir not makkng a decision. Sometimes put yourself in their position.

  7. Ocho my friend, it’s useless to quote from a fringe nut-job like Assange.
    He AIDS himself to Oblivion. Trust is earned, not by broadcasting, but by diligence. Snitching is not a function of ‘Conscience’. A Promise is just that.

    Cholera and gonorrhea are quite easily eradicated, AIDS is not. And Cnut the Great was the King of England, Denmark and Norway at the turn of the first millennium C.E.

    Who cares about ‘trust deficits’ when the economic deficit and inequality is almost insurmountable?

    The choice of POTUS is either/or – not Bernie nor Cruz – so don’t dwell in the Land of Make Belief. Like most ordinary blokes, i see Biliary (that’s Bill and Hillary) as the more cogent choice.

    But if you insist, here’s to Beautiful Eire:

    PS: Go to the Esther Satterfield version for the full version and lyrics.

  8. “Cholera and gonorrhea are quite easily eradicated, AIDS is not. And Cnut the Great was the King of England, Denmark and Norway at the turn of the first millennium C.E.”

    CLF, mate. A bright spark like you should know better than to take his quote ad verbatim and Assange is hardly a nut case at all. That’s too convenient, I’m sure you can come up with a cleverer if not more apt description. But then again, it’s no surprise at all either why chaps like him who dare to stand out and up against the establishment tend to get the dubious honour of being either labelled as insane, bigots, sex fiend. Or whatever comes out of the woodwork as long as it serves the purpose to discredit the intended target.

    “Who cares about ‘trust deficits’ when the economic deficit and inequality is almost insurmountable?”.
    The economic deficit and insurmountable inequality are already a foregone conclusion, any jackass can tell you that. And you wanna compound the problem by appointing someone with a serious trust deficit to find the solution? Then again, you could be right. In American politics, it is big money that paves the corridors of power in Capitol Hill. Deficits are immaterial, be it of trust, credibility, experience or intelligence so long as the candidate is of fine puppet material. So, by your definition, Clinton makes a good choice as in deed,Trump obviously has a serious deficit of the compliance factor

    As for Billary being the more cogent choice,tell that to those who want to change the status quo. The wind of real change is blowing. The writing is on the wall. A famous scientist once said that insanity is crapping the same shit over and over and expecting a different result. And talking about shit, you may wanna go easy on the magic dragon, mate. 🙂

  9. “As for Billary being the more cogent choice,tell that to those who want to change the status quo. The wind of real change is blowing. The writing is on the wall. ”

    Why are the voices that want to change the status quo as important as those who actually vote – 54% at last count and dropping – and support the two establishment parties ?

    “Trump could not be bothered if he is made to apear desolate and “dumped” by the Replubicans when he actually intends to move away from the pack of losers. ”

    If Trump is not bothered why did he throw a hissy fit and spend way too much time attacking the GOP and um…..why did he choose to run on their ticket ?

    “But then again, it’s no surprise at all either why chaps like him who dare to stand out and up against the establishment tend to get the dubious honour of being either labelled as insane, bigots, sex fiend. ”

    You mean like Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Steve Biko, Rosa Parks et all or do you have some other people in mind, like Trump, who keeps telling his white voting base not to let the “other communities” steal the election.

    Yeah that’s sticking it to the man …..

  10. There are all sorts anti-Establishment methods, as Conrad rightly pointed out.
    Assange is not one. He is a hypocritical narcissistic anarchist.

    There are those who work within the system to try to change it often without recognition; others who challenge and confront the Establishment and suffer the consequences; and yet others who think they are heroes yet cut and run as soon as they blow up what they pledged to keep secret..

    The Establishment is called so, because it is glacial in change, uncaring and thoroughly self-absorbed. Like a glacier it gouges, pulverizes and erodes. One can only change it’s direction by standing firm. It cares not about reams of data breaches, which causes much embarrassment but does not change anything else.

    What is clear is that – unless a self-sacrificial visionary with truly humongous balls arrives we can only deflect the system. It is not about populism, it is about altruism.

    Reality demands that we work within the system because we were made by that, yet remain steadfast in our convictions. Otherwise, we end up as a prisoner of conscience who no one really cares an eff about – or a ‘guest’ of the enemy which we were against in the first place. Hypocrisy is well defined, is it not?

    Choose your heroes well. Choose your anti-heroes just as well.

  11. “Why are the voices that want to change the status quo as important as those who actually vote – 54% at last count and dropping – and support the two establishment parties ?”

    What are you going on about? Did you pull the figure out from the rabbit’s hat? The anti establishment sentiment among the Trump and Bernie supporters is unmistakable and rising. The people are feeling let down by the ruling class. Ever widening economic inequality, loss of jobs, break down of law and order in the inner city streets, just to name a few issues the people want addressed. The question the people are asking is are they better off today than they were 8 years
    ago?

    “If Trump is not bothered why did he throw a hissy fit and spend way too much time attacking the GOP and um…..why did he choose to run on their ticket ?”

    Why did you think was the reason Bernie Sanders ran on the Democrat ticket? Both men needed a platform. Trump is unencumbered by political ties. He only climbed on board the GOP bandwagon when he decided to run for office.

    “You mean like Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Steve Biko, Rosa Parks et all or do you have some other people in mind, like Trump, who keeps telling his white voting base not to let the “other communities” steal the election.”

    Excuse me, I was not referring to Assange. It is interesting that you did not also mention that all the people you listed were all persecuted and worse for some, assassinated. And yes, I do have other people in mind besides Assange. How about, Roxana Saberi, Aung San Suu Kyi, Muhammed Ali, Fidel Castro, Mahathir Mohamed, Malcolm X, Frederick Douglass, Galileo Galilei, Jesus of Nazareth…

    BTW. I am neither a supporter of Trump or Clinton. I am merely throwing in a monkey wrench to the argument as I feel that the above article is totally biased.
    Like I said the biggest loser is the American electorate. The election is a sham. I am sceptical that Trump is as anti-establishment as he appears to be. It will be business as usual if Trump becomes POTUS. He has already promised to increase spending to expand and upgrade the US military. The only ones who are going to get their knickers twisted up if he wins are the Clintonites. Why? Its all about money and power, folks.

    You folks remember the “Yes, we can change” baloney from Obama, the promises he made before and what became of his promises after he became President? – “Yes, we can. Yes, we can change. Yes, we can.
    Yes, we can heal this nation. Yes, we can seize our future. And as we leave this great state with a new wind at our backs and we take this journey across this great country, a country we love”….blah, blah, blah.

    The Clintonites know that Hilary has a serious trust deficit and how damaging that is but there is nothing they can do about it but to go after Trump with personal attacks to make him look bad. I thought it was hilarious when Hilary quoted her “best friend”, Michelle with “when your opponent hit low, you hit high”. I thought that was the understatement of the nite when it was obvious how desperate she appeared when she was actually the one hitting below the belt.

  12. “There are all sorts anti-Establishment methods, as Conrad rightly pointed out.
    Assange is not one. He is a hypocritical narcissistic anarchist.”

    You mean like Edward Snowden? One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Same applies to heroes and antiheroes.

    Conrad’s sarcasm was not lost but you have to admit that he accepts the fact that Assange was anti establishment. It is just which establishment Assange was against that he detests as we all know Assange also happens to be pro Putin. 🙂

  13. “What are you going on about? Did you pull the figure out from the rabbit’s hat? The anti establishment sentiment …….”

    No, that’s the most recent figure from many American research orgs. I’ll use the PEW stats for ease and clarity – http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/02/u-s-voter-turnout-trails-most-developed-countries/ but maybe you should check around before shooting your mouth off.

    “However measured, U.S. turnout rates have been fairly consistent over the past several decades, despite some election-to-election variation. Since 1980, voting-age turnout has varied within a 9-percentage-point range – from 48% in 1996, when Bill Clinton was re-elected, to 57% in 2008, when Barack Obama won the White House. (Turnout, of course, varies considerably among different racial, ethnic and age groups.)”

    Bernie and trump supporters are railing against their individual political parties and along ideological lines – left and right – and not advocating abolishing the Establishment (which includes the instruments of the State and various polices) which is why third party candidates that advocate such are not supported by the majority of Americans .

    Every election is about people asking if they are better of than before so I have no idea what the hell you are babbling on about. Are people dejected by Washington politics ? Yes they are but Bernie and Trump supporters – people who vote and participate in the democratic process and who support the Establishment are hoping to change the System along their respective ideological framework . Which was my point and nothing to with your “writing on the wall” malarkey.

    “Why did you think was the reason Bernie Sanders ran on the Democrat ticket? Both men needed a platform. Trump is unencumbered by political ties. …”

    Trump is hardly unencumbered by political ties, and if he needed a platform then why does he now in (your words) choose to disassociate from losers ? Except of course he is not dissociating, he is whining about how they let him down and are disloyal to him.

    “Excuse me, I was not referring to Assange. It is interesting that you did not also mention that all the people you listed were all persecuted and worse for some, assassinated. And yes, I do have other people in mind besides Assange. How about, Roxana Saberi, Aung San Suu Kyi, Muhammed Ali, Fidel Castro, Mahathir Mohamed, Malcolm X, Frederick Douglass, Galileo Galilei, Jesus of Nazareth… ”

    I never said they were not persecuted only that context is important when discussing anti establishment figures. And please you were so referring to Assange if not why even bother bringing up anti establishment personalities.

    “BTW. I am neither a supporter of Trump or Clinton. I am merely throwing in a monkey wrench to the argument as I feel that the above article is totally biased.”

    Totally biased against whom, Trump ? Why throw a monkey wrench – which generally means sabotaging? Who are you sabotaging for ? For someone who claims to support neither, you have shown a bias against one for the other. And your last paragraphs attacking Obama and the Clintons- shit, why can’t you just say Hillary ? makes it clear who you are for.

  14. Conrad’s sarcasm was not lost but you have to admit that he accepts the fact that Assange was anti establishment. It is just which establishment Assange was against that he detests as we all know Assange also happens to be pro Putin.

    Where did I accept the fact that Assange was anti Establishemnt ? Which Establishment do you think I detests ? By your own words you think he is Pro Putin and no, we all don’t know if he is Pro Putin. you seem to think so. And why does your rhetoric only consists of platitudes ?

  15. Edit to add.

    One last thing, generally when people thrown around the term “anti Establishment people” it generally means personalities who stay and fight against a specific System. The folks mentioned generally did that , worked within an ideological framework and most often suffered because of it. People who merely throw tantrums and rage against the Big Bad World and seek shelter in places not of their own making, we have a term for such people. Rational folks call them teenagers.

  16. ’Why are the voices that want to change the status quo as important as those who actually vote – 54% at last count and dropping – and support the two
    establishment parties ?”
    “ll use the PEW stats for ease and clarity – http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/02/u-s-voter-turnout-trails-most-developed-countries/ but maybe you should check around before shooting your mouth off.”

    You are a joke. You flashed some outdated data as if it is the gospel truth and you have the audacity to tell someone else to check around before shooting off his mouth when you do not even know how to interpret simple data.
    The data is a depiction of the trend of low voter turnout. No where did the data suggests that those who failed to turn out to vote were either supportive or non supportive of any parties. It is your own conclusion that they support the two establishment parties.
    On the contrary, the poor voter turn out is more an indicator of the indifference of the voters due to their disappointment and lost of faith in the ruling elites that they did not bother to vote. That is why I mentioned earlier that madness is crapping the same shit over and over and expect a different result.
    I can guarantee you that the voter turn out this time will be phenomenal thanks to Trump who is rallying for everyone, especially the fence sitters to come out to vote and if this happens, I can bet you Clinton can kiss her bid goodbye.
    Not convinced? Consider this. Brexit happened because the more than a million voters who were against exit, especially the so called more educated and college age segment of the demographics did not bother to drag their ass to the polling booth and then they bitch about it later when the Remain camp lost the Referendum.

    “Which was my point and nothing to with your “writing on the wall” malarkey.”

    Sorry lah bro. I am just a kampong lad from Malaysia. I am neither Irish or American. Please don’t try to impress me with fancy words. Plain old bullshit will do. Thank you. 🙂

    “Trump is hardly unencumbered by political ties, and if he needed a platform then why does he now in (your words) choose to disassociate from losers ? Except of course he is not dissociating, he is whining about how they let him down and are disloyal to him.”

    Yes. He is disassociating himself from those who back stabbed him. His words, not mine. And of course, he is not disassociating from the rest who continued to support him, smartass, because of the electoral college system. He needs the Republican electors to get their votes in, in order for him to get the final votes to be elected President.

    “And please you were so referring to Assange if not why even bother bringing up anti establishment personalities.”

    Where did I ever refer to Assange as an anti establishment personality. You either have a serious comprehension issue or you have a nasty habit of deliberately twisting and taking what I wrote out of context. In fact, you are the one who came up with your list of so called anti establishment personalities.

    “Totally biased against whom, Trump ? Why throw a monkey wrench – which generally means sabotaging? ……”

    Are you denying that the article is not biased? Sabotaging? Hardly but I derive great joy in riling and ruffling up ostriches like you who stick their heads in the sand and expose their asses invitingly to the world when it should be the other way around.
    In what way did I attack Obama and Clinton? Did he not make promises that he did failed to deliver and did Killary not hit below the belt when she resort to personally attacking Trump when she should be debating differences in policies instead. Its not my problem if you can’t handle the truth.
    So what if I called Killary, Clinton? I call Donald, Trump. Do you have an issue with that?

    “By your own words you think he is Pro Putin and no, we all don’t know if he is Pro Putin. you seem to think so”

    Edward Snowden + Julian Assange = Putin. This is all I will say and if you still don’t get it, please don’t waste my time – in case, you have no better things to do with yours.

  17. “You are a joke. You flashed some outdated data as if it is the gospel truth and you have the audacity to tell someone else to check around before shooting off his mouth when you do not even know how to interpret simple data.
    The data is a depiction of the trend of low voter turnout. …..”

    Did they teach you how to read in your kampong ? This is what I said upthread- “54% at last count and dropping – which means exactly that, low voter turnout ….which is exactly what the data published this year suggest over a period of years. You really have to learn to read before using words like “interpret.”

    “It is your own conclusion that they support the two establishment parties”

    Uh-huh and which parties did those who turned out to vote, vote for ? That’s right, the GOP or DNC.

    “On the contrary, the poor voter turn out is more an indicator of the indifference of the voters due to their disappointment and lost of faith in the ruling elites that they did not bother to vote.”

    Or you know maybe that people are just apathetic or could care less who is running the country.

    “I can guarantee you that the voter turn out this time will be phenomenal thanks to Trump who is rallying for everyone, especially the fence sitters to come out to vote…….”

    Tell us again that you don’t have a dog in this race ? Maybe he can or maybe he has alienated people to the point that they want stability over his insane rhetoric.

    “Not convinced? Consider this. Brexit happened because the more than a million voters who were against exit, …..”

    Maybe, which is why the DNC keeps firing up its base, wooing undecided voters and even Republicans.

    “Yes. He is disassociating himself from those who back stabbed him. ”

    No he is disassociating himself from people who think that he has gone off the rails. His misogyny – that turns of the women vote (traditional GOP supporters) – his racism that turns of the black and Hispanic vote and finally claiming the elections are rigged, which turn of the republican governors and mayors.

    “Where did I ever refer to Assange as an anti establishment personality.”

    When you brought up the fact that such figures were persecuted in a discussion about Assange. Like I said, where did you learn to read and write ?

    “Are you denying that the article is not biased?”

    Are you claiming that you are not ?

    “Hardly but I derive great joy in riling and ruffling up ostriches like you who stick their heads in the sand and expose their asses invitingly to the world when it should be the other way around.”

    The only one whose ass is exposed is yours. You are angry, I get that but you can be angry and make sense or you can be angry and be nonsensical. That’s what teenagers do.

    “In what way did I attack Obama and Clinton? Did he not make promises that he did failed to deliver and did Killary not hit below the belt when she resort to personally attacking Trump when she should be debating differences in policies instead. Its not my problem if you can’t handle the truth.”

    Killary ? Tell me again how you do not have a dog in this race. You think Hillary hits below the belt. Have you read Trump’s tweets, his rants against anyone who disagrees with him ? Wait, reading your comments here, I do not think you see the absurdity of his statements but more importantly yours.

    “Edward Snowden + Julian Assange = Putin. This is all I will say and if you still don’t get it, please don’t waste my time – in case, you have no better things to do with yours”

    What does this even mean ? Good lord, no wonder Trump appeals to you. After the nonsense I just waded through, the words, “don’t waste my time” should never be written by the likes of you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s