The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(10-26-2016 04:28 PM)MajorHoople Wrote:  You're being redundant.

Being a US Senator and Secretary of State are far more than "job titles."

And being a "good politician" isn't always a bad thing. One must be able to work with others, even those of different philosophical persuasions.

I am being redundant. Because you are being evasive.

I was hoping you (or someone) might make a positive case for HRC's accomplishments/achievements while in office.

Apparently just being in office sufficiently impresses you.

But I suspect that even you don't believe what you're saying.

If GWB were running against HRC, you'd vote for him simply because governor TX / 2 term POTUS >>> senator from NY /SOS ???

Yes, I believe what I'm saying.

She is the most qualified person to be President-Chief Executive of the United States.

Can't be any less evasive-more forthright than that.

Do you have a more accomplished, qualified candidate to offer?

(10-26-2016 04:42 PM)ESSSS Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 04:28 PM)MajorHoople Wrote:  You're being redundant.

Being a US Senator and Secretary of State are far more than "job titles."

And being a "good politician" isn't always a bad thing. One must be able to work with others, even those of different philosophical persuasions.

I am being redundant. Because you are being evasive.

I was hoping you (or someone) might make a positive case for HRC's accomplishments/achievements while in office.

Apparently just being in office sufficiently impresses you.

But I suspect that even you don't believe what you're saying.

If GWB were running against HRC, you'd vote for him simply because governor TX / 2 term POTUS >>> senator from NY /SOS ???

Hillary Clinton has few, if any, major public policy accomplishments. She is a sleeze bag and a pathetic excuse for a human being. Unfortunately, compared to Trump, she doesn't look so bad because he is just as bad, if not worse.

The problem Clinton has is the reason people are backing Trump. I agree with Michael Moore who claims Trump provides a vehicle to offer an giant F-YOU! to the political establishment of both parties. Moore also thinks Trump will win.

The middle class is hurting in America and both parties share the blame. There is a reason Sanders did so well in the Dem primary (he would have won it if Clinton supporters at the DNC had not rigged the delegate process, per wiki leaks). People are rightfully furious and Trump - despite being a moron - gives them the opportunity to "stick-it" to the political elites.

Trump's womanizing and abuse is horrible. However, Clinton's enabling of her husband's well chronicled abuses (Lewinski was barely an adult for goodness sake) is on par, if not worse than what Trump is guilty of.

This election is a sordid event in America's history. Regardless of who "wins," the nation loses with a weak, ethically challenged, chief executive.

(10-26-2016 05:02 PM)MajorHoople Wrote:  Yes, I believe what I'm saying.

She is the most qualified person to be President-Chief Executive of the United States.

Can't be any less evasive-more forthright than that.

Do you have a more accomplished, qualified candidate to offer?

You seem to be attempting a conversation with someone not on this board.

I'm not sure why.

But....carry on :)

C'mon, those are baiting questions.

Plus, given that the choices are what they are, what is a voter supposed to do?

I don't understand why you didn't answer my question, or what you're trying to accomplish here.

The only relevant question is who is most qualified to be Chief Executive of the most powerful country on Earth.

I believe it is Hillary Clinton.

That's why.

So we have a message board standoff. Perhaps even cancel each other's votes November 8.

(10-26-2016 04:20 PM)ESSSS Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 04:17 PM)MajorHoople Wrote:  Perhaps, if you choose to ignore her having been a US Senator and Secretary of State.

From your perspective, what were her most impressive accomplishments as a US Senator and Secretary of State?

Other than obtaining these job titles

Few would argue that she's not a good politician.

When she was president in the 90's, the economy was going quite well.

(10-26-2016 05:31 PM)MajorHoople Wrote:  I don't understand why you didn't answer my question, or what you're trying to accomplish here.

The only relevant question is who is most qualified to be Chief Executive of the most powerful country on Earth.

I believe it is Hillary Clinton.

That's why.

So we have a message board standoff. Perhaps even cancel each other's votes November 8.

What question?

(10-26-2016 05:31 PM)Moomba Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 04:20 PM)ESSSS Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 04:17 PM)MajorHoople Wrote:  Perhaps, if you choose to ignore her having been a US Senator and Secretary of State.

From your perspective, what were her most impressive accomplishments as a US Senator and Secretary of State?

Other than obtaining these job titles

Few would argue that she's not a good politician.

When she was president in the 90's, the economy was going quite well.

:)))

Apparently you can add Michael Moore to that list of Trump voters.

FWIW.

(10-26-2016 05:18 PM)Moomba Wrote:  C'mon, those are baiting questions.

They aren't meant to be.

I am not voting for Trump. I think he will lose.

And I have little good to say about him.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.

I am just interested in hearing if anyone here that is voting for HRC believes she has accomplished anything impressive while serving in the senate or as secretary of state.

(10-26-2016 05:44 PM)MajorHoople Wrote:  Apparently you can add Michael Moore to that list of Trump voters.

FWIW.

For real? He was all about Bernie not a democrat, Sanders. To vote for Trump after being all in for Bern just means he's not taking this serious.

They couldn't be MORE diametrically opposed.

To steal from Al Franken, "Michael Moore is a big, fat idiot".

(10-26-2016 05:40 PM)ESSSS Wrote:  What question?

Now who's being evasive?

Go back to post #102 this thread.

(10-26-2016 05:31 PM)MajorHoople Wrote:  The only relevant question is who is most qualified to be Chief Executive of the most powerful country on Earth.

I believe it is Hillary Clinton.

My response to you on this was "maybe so"

What "standoff"?

(10-26-2016 05:49 PM)ESSSS Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 05:31 PM)MajorHoople Wrote:  The only relevant question is who is most qualified to be Chief Executive of the most powerful country on Earth.

I believe it is Hillary Clinton.

My response to you on this was "maybe so"

What "standoff"?

Wrong post. Try again. Or not.

As far as "standoff" - back on #95 you wrote "we can agree to disagree."

(10-26-2016 05:44 PM)MajorHoople Wrote:  Apparently you can add Michael Moore to that list of Trump voters.

FWIW.

Moore has endorsed Clinton.

However, even he has said the only reason he is supporting her is because she is not Trump.

Few actually "support" Hillary Clinton. They just "oppose" Donald Trump. Understandably, so.

(10-26-2016 05:02 PM)MajorHoople Wrote:  Do you have a more accomplished, qualified candidate to offer?

Maybe you mean this question?

It's hard for me to answer given your definition of "accomplished and qualified".

My choice for president is old. And not running this time. And he has failed in multiple past attempts to become president.

You act like I'm criticizing you for voting for HRC. Or that I'm trying to convince you NOT to vote for her.

I'm not.

She was a senator, and SOS.

Those are her most impressive accomplishments to you. That's all I asked.

I get it.

(10-26-2016 05:51 PM)MajorHoople Wrote:  As far as "standoff" - back on #95 you wrote "we can agree to disagree."

A misunderstanding apparently

I was simply referring to my statement about "HRC running for the presidency for 25 years". You disagreed with it.

That's all.

(10-26-2016 05:47 PM)Moomba Wrote:  They couldn't be MORE diametrically opposed.

Trump threatened a 35% tariff on Ford cars if they take jobs to Mexico.

Michael Moore LOVED it.

(10-26-2016 06:01 PM)ESSSS Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 05:51 PM)MajorHoople Wrote:  As far as "standoff" - back on #95 you wrote "we can agree to disagree."

A misunderstanding apparently

I was simply referring to my statement about "running for the presidency for 25 years".

Nothing else.

How many years did your choice who "failed in multiple attempts to become president" run - announced or otherwise?