Obama trying to hurt Trump or help him?

[CitizenBBN]

He said that world leaders are "rattled" by Trump's nomination.

He meant it to scare people about Trump, and it may but probably only with those who are already afraid. But it also helps him with a LOT of Americans who feel we've been far to willing to acquiesce to foreign leaders and interests.

This is the part of Trump that reminds me a lot of Reagan. Reagan was very pro-US, very unilateral in his campaign talk, and he was likewise painted as someone we couldn't trust with the nuclear arsenal, someone who would mess up the workings of foreign diplomacy with his wild west approach.

As it turns out having our enemies think our leader is capable of doing something crazy works really well in negotiations. the world knows Obama wouldn't do a thing to risk a real conflict so China and Russia and NK and the rest have done everything they can to expand their power and position. They'd be worried about Trump, and Trump would back up his words more like Reagan.

Yeah they're rattled. Obama says it like that's a bad thing, for both US foreign policy and Trump's election.

[Doc]

One more reason to vote for Trump. That makes two. Reason one, the other reason, he isn't Hillary

[CitizenBBN]

One more reason to vote for Trump. That makes two. Reason one, the other reason, he isn't Hillary

Reason one is huge, but I really do think he has the potential to do good things in foreign policy.

He'll rankle people to no end, and piss some people off royally, but so did Reagan. Will he be as good as reagan? I don't know, Reagan was ABSOLUTELY more "Presidential" while at the same time being tough and having a simple, clear view of the direction of the nation both internally an externally. Trump will hurt insults the likes of which we haven't seen since the 1800s with someone like Andrew Jackson, but I do think he is willing to stand up for America and will be a far more effective negotiator with the other side already "rattled" at what he might do.

Trump is right, that's exactly what you want from your opponent when you go into negotiations, or any contest. that's a good thing, and while our allies may be nervous he can easily deal with that through reassuring actions. I'm betting countries like Israel will love him.

But it in the net will only help trump in the election IMO, just as it helped Reagan.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Trump is no Reagan. Not anywhere close.

I'm not even that much of a Reagan fan, either. Although I don't think he was a bad President at all.

Can we put the "anyone but Hillary" argument aside and really vet Trump for what he is?

I don't like Hillary either, but what you're going to get is more of the same that we've had for 25 years. Is that really a bad thing?

Trump is SO under qualified and a loose canon that we don't know what he's capable of doing. That in itself is extremely frightening. I like to think that you guys can realize that. Let's face it, we're all going to go to the booth holding our nose this election, but does the hatred of Hillary really need to start the Trump is Reagan comparisons?

[CitizenBBN]

I never said Trump is Reagan. Reagan was vastly more "Presidential" as I said, and unlike Trump he actually had a core belief system that guided him. Trump is a salesman, Reagan really believed in what he said but Trump just sells the product.

the only way in which they are very similar is that one of the biggest attacks on Reagan in the 1980 election was that he was a loose cannon who would frighten and destabilize the world situation, that he was dangerous and his rhetoric was dangerous. There were numerous editorials and such all about him not being responsible enough to control the nuclear arsenal, exactly what we hear about Trump.

the truth is that both Reagan and Trump used that edgy rhetoric to their negotiating advantage, and it works. In that way they are very similar.

Trust me, I love reagan and long for that kind of candidate again, and I know Trump can't hold his jock strap, at least not at this point (you have to remember Reagan didnt' really become reagan till he took office, true of most strong Presidents including Bill Clinton fwiw).

But yes the "anyone but Hillary" argument does carry a lot of weight with me, and this isn't about just more of the last 25 years. The simple truth is that it's in Trump's best interest to appoint basically conservative justices to SCOTUS, and Hillary will appoint anti-gun justices with a bent for judicial activism and social justice. It's simply unacceptable and putting moderate to conservative justices on the bench is more important than anything else b/c they will govern the general direction of things for decades.

Also, this nation does in fact desperately need to break the last 25 years b/c yes they have been that bad. Not immediately, but they are walking us down a path of corruption and government intervention that must look a lot like the transformation of Rome from a well run Republic to a corrupt self indulgent monarchy.

To the extent he'll appoint justices like he has outlined and he does in fact start breaking up any of the Washington beltway world, it will be a good thing. His excesses will be trying to say the least, but it could be worth it.

As for being "qualified", Hillary to me is the one who is not qualified. First, I'm sick of people running this country who have never held a normal job or run a business. they have grown up in fantasy land and never once learned what incentive economics is really like. Second, she has so desperately mishandled the nation's security as Sec. of State that she is utterly disqualified from holding any office requiring a security clearance.

She was told more than once what she was doing was a problem, she knew full well and didn't care b/c she can't contemplate the idea that she has to suffer any inconvenience for any reason. she was more concerned about making sure she avoided FOIA for her own career purposes that she put the nation's secrets at risk.

It's the ultimate hubris and scares me far more than Trump's posturing and childish taunts. Trump has negotiated 100s of high level deals, at least he understands the need to protect sensitive information.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

To me, the election is only about the SCOTUS, so I get that. It's why I'll hold my nose and vote for Hillary.

I think there are some things that Trump can do well as a President, but I don't trust his business acumen at all.

He has skirted laws for years and most likely have broken some too, much more severe than Hillary, if the fraud accusations end up sticking.

You may not want more of the last 25 years, and most of us don't either. However, my point is that the risk of what the next 10-20 years(minus the SCOTUS appts) is a risk/reward beyond so many people's desires.

[CitizenBBN]

I'm quite sure Trump has skirted laws as a businessman. I hate to break it to those who haven't been in business, but if you don't at least rub up against the line some you'll never make it. The fact that he knows that is a good thing, b/c small businesses in this country are under a massive assault unique in our history, and it's going to destroy the nation from the inside out.

but as for being more severe than Hillary, I find that laughable. There is NOTHING trump could have possibly done that endangered our national security, and there is now no doubt Hillary committed multiple felonies (the IG report confirms she removed government information without permission) that constitute both mishandling of US intelligence and avoidance of Freedom of Information Act disclosure laws.

Versus lying in some business negotiation it's no contest for me. Trump wasn't obligated to serve the public good, but Hillary was as Sec. of State. she had a fiduciary obligation to the People, breaching that is far more serious.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

I'm quite sure Trump has skirted laws as a businessman. I hate to break it to those who haven't been in business, but if you don't at least rub up against the line some you'll never make it. The fact that he knows that is a good thing, b/c small businesses in this country are under a massive assault unique in our history, and it's going to destroy the nation from the inside out.

but as for being more severe than Hillary, I find that laughable. There is NOTHING trump could have possibly done that endangered our national security, and there is now no doubt Hillary committed multiple felonies (the IG report confirms she removed government information without permission) that constitute both mishandling of US intelligence and avoidance of Freedom of Information Act disclosure laws.

Versus lying in some business negotiation it's no contest for me. Trump wasn't obligated to serve the public good, but Hillary was as Sec. of State. she had a fiduciary obligation to the People, breaching that is far more serious.

The interpretation of what Hillary may or may not have done is definitely different. Right now, she seems more guilty of being dumb with emails.

Trump hasn't been vetted enough on the fraud charges that are being litigated against him. IF he's guilty of what he's being accused of, it's abominable, and definitely worse, IMO, than what I feel what Hillary has done.

My question, have you really looked into the accusations and lawsuits against Trump to make an accurate assessment? I have a follow up that is a much larger debate after that.

[Doc]

Trump is no Reagan. Not anywhere close.

I'm not even that much of a Reagan fan, either. Although I don't think he was a bad President at all.

Can we put the "anyone but Hillary" argument aside and really vet Trump for what he is?

I don't like Hillary either, but what you're going to get is more of the same that we've had for 25 years. Is that really a bad thing?

Trump is SO under qualified and a loose canon that we don't know what he's capable of doing. That in itself is extremely frightening. I like to think that you guys can realize that. Let's face it, we're all going to go to the booth holding our nose this election, but does the hatred of Hillary really need to start the Trump is Reagan comparisons?

In my opinion, yes.

Maybe someday we will vet Hillary for what she really is, a criminal.

I don't find Trump frightening at all, nor do I see him as not qualified. He can certain lie as well as any politician, can be self serving and morally deficient. Makes him quite qualified to work in the highest ranks of our government. However he also knows how to make money, run and economy and manage a large organization. And what he doesn't do is simply tell you what you want to hear. Unpredictable? I'd suggest that somebody who take millions from wall street then tells you about the evils of wall Street is unpredictable because you have no idea where she REALLY stands

[Catonahottinroof]

Be careful what you ask for in this regard. Vetting both candidates throroughly will reveal her history of untruth all the way back to Watergate and who has bought and paid for her decision making.
I'm sure his history is sullied too. In fact I'm certain of it, but he doesn't have the questionable deaths of people in his history or being bought by middle eastern oil sheiks on his resume.

Trump is no Reagan. Not anywhere close.

I'm not even that much of a Reagan fan, either. Although I don't think he was a bad President at all.

Can we put the "anyone but Hillary" argument aside and really vet Trump for what he is?

I don't like Hillary either, but what you're going to get is more of the same that we've had for 25 years. Is that really a bad thing?

Trump is SO under qualified and a loose canon that we don't know what he's capable of doing. That in itself is extremely frightening. I like to think that you guys can realize that. Let's face it, we're all going to go to the booth holding our nose this election, but does the hatred of Hillary really need to start the Trump is Reagan comparisons?

[Doc]

Be careful what you ask for in this regard. Vetting both candidates thoroughly will reveal her history of untruth all the way back to Watergate and who has bought and paid for her decision making.
I'm sure his history is sullied too. In fact I'm certain of it, but he doesn't have the questionable deaths of people in his history or being bought by middle eastern oil sheiks on his resume.

He'd likely BRAG about it. That's the difference. She'd lie to cover it up...or just lie because she thinks its best to lie..... or because she simply does not know how to tell the truth. Donald would say "what the F". I did it. So which one is "unpredictable"? The liar or the guy who doesn't know when to shut up?

[KeithKSR]

The interpretation of what Hillary may or may not have done is definitely different. Right now, she seems more guilty of being dumb with emails.

It wasn't stupidity on the part of Hillary, it was a deliberate violation of federal law.

[UKHistory]

It wasn't stupidity on the part of Hillary, it was a deliberate violation of federal law.

Arrogance or ignorance, either Way Hilary's behavior with regards to security is grounds for the lowest federal employee to lose his or her job.

Hiring a campaign person to state's cio and that person not disclosing he worked for her on the side is also really bad.

The biggest concern to me is the foundation itself. That is fine after public office but for a sitting president to have financial deals with foreign businesses and leaders puts into question her commitment to the country.

[KeithKSR]

I'm surprised there has been so little mention of Hillary sharing classified info via email with Blumenthal.

[CitizenBBN]

The interpretation of what Hillary may or may not have done is definitely different. Right now, she seems more guilty of being dumb with emails.

We now have new emails (after all of them should long ago have been turned over) showing EXACTLY what I said months ago: she did this to avoid potential Freedom of Information Act requests. She was afraid her emails, personal or otherwise, would potentially be made public.

She wasn't "dumb". Hillary is a lot of things, but she is far from dumb. She's as shrewd as any to ever hold high office. She set this up so she'd be able to delete those 30,000+ emails without review by government officials, so she could decide what she wanted to keep private.

We now have actual indications that the obvious (and it was totally obvious) is in fact the case.

BTW, the effort to even potentially skirt FOIA regulations is also a felony. One of several she's committed in this process.

We know from the IG's report that she lied about being willing to "meet with anyone, anywhere", refusing to meet with an Obama appointed IG who was assigned the job by a Democratic Sec of State. We know she lied about the server having never been attacked.

But most of all we know she lied about WHY she did it and that she lied about it being approved in any way. It wasn't approved, and wiithout that approval she violated section 1924 and is guilty of removing government information without permission.

It's an open and shut case. It's a felony to remove that information to another location without permission or approval, and the IG just said that she never got permission and that HAD SHE ASKED it would have not been given.

She's not dumb, she's just so completely full of herself she thinks she's above the law. It is her hubris that should in the end be her undoing. They're Tammany Hall with a lot more zeroes.

[ukcatlvr]

To me, the election is only about the SCOTUS, so I get that. It's why I'll hold my nose and vote for Hillary.

I think there are some things that Trump can do well as a President, but I don't trust his business acumen at all.

He has skirted laws for years and most likely have broken some too, much more severe than Hillary, if the fraud accusations end up sticking.

You may not want more of the last 25 years, and most of us don't either. However, my point is that the risk of what the next 10-20 years(minus the SCOTUS appts) is a risk/reward beyond so many people's desires.

You may want to hold on to your guns and wallet also. I would never vote for this "person". I don't like Trump all that much but that's my choice for now. I've not been 100% behind a candidate since Reagan but have voted against. B Clinton, Gore, Kerry, BHO & now Killary.