DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Presidential Election Campaigns 2016 part 3

I think it's beyond sad that he's saying stupid ass stuff about Obama and Clinton being co-founders of ISIS and people like you look away.

I, for one, am not ignoring it. However, I am investigating the entire text and the context of the comment. You have no clue who is ignoring what.


How are you? His claim is that when Obama irresponsibly withdrew troops leaving the area totally vulnerable to the "jv" squad he left the environment ripe for an ISIS takeover. Therefore, creating it. Isn't that what occured?

Did Obama not refer to ISIS as the jv squad?
Did he not send additonal troops back, a liitle to late to counter?

Did this not occur?

I believe those who may ignore this are no different than those that choose to "ignore" the fact that the steel dragon is a criminal, liar, thief and at fault for the deaths of Americans. Why are some totally ignoring these facts? Old news? Maybe. But facts just the same.

DOJ refuses to investigate the clinton foundation. Ignore that! Why? Old news, right?

Any of us who support one of these candidates is ignoring certain statistics. Guess it's simply a matter of who we find less detrimental to the well being of this country.


We know what we get with clinton in office. Four more of the same.

She just proposed "debt free", not tuition free, college for families making under $125,00.00. What she doesn't include in her proposal is that room and board, books and meals are not included. This leaves college still as a financial burden and totally a cumbersome burden to many.

Another clinton administration will enable people and keep them under the control of the government. This type of government does not empower, it simply enables, entitles and controls.

If the country chooses this, so be it. It will not create a prosperous America.

45,000 members of ISIS has been killed in the past two years. Yet people scream as if nothing is being done about it.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/698980/End-ISIS-45000-jihadis-killed-Operation-Inherent-Resolve

You see, when you kill 45,000 of them and only lose a minimal amount of our young, brave soldiers, that's the goal.

The estimate is that ISIS was 60,000 strong and now are down to around 15,000.

But just let Trump keep scaring the hell out of you and blaming everyone but Bush.

I am confused. You mention a text. I am talking about what he said. Here is the quote again:



I even asked whether he actually said it or if a reporter made it up as a joke because it's hard to believe he could be that ignorant and hateful.

Things like this are the reason that I believe he is truly dangerous to the well-being of our country.

Trump was wrong.

And further more, O didn't found ISIS, it's ISIL. (he's the only one I know of that calls it that.)

Vers, I do not disagree with you. Sorry, you have no beef with me.

In fact, last evening my husband and I were discussing his irresponsible commentary thus far.

However, his actions, to my knowledge, have cost no human lives,

One sentence does not provide total context.

Additonally, if you believe the steel dragon is not dangerous to this country as well think again. She has already proven that. Guess it's the lesser of the "dangers" we shall cast our vote for.

Good day Sir.

I agree w/a lot of your takes. I just am not feeling your backing of Trump, especially as a person who is a mother and a former teacher.

Oh.........and I can't stand Hillary. I just don't think she is a dangerous as Trump in regards to escalating the already tense racial divide and getting into a war w/another country.

I refuse to vote for either. I am voting for Johnson and I think he is the only rational choice.

It's easy to claim his actions haven't cost human lives when he's never been in a situation to make that sort of call.

I think a lot of people forget that.

And while lives haven't been lost, he sure as hell has a track record of ruining them.

See his trump university fraud case for a great example.

Donald Trump called on evangelical pastors to help him win the presidency this November, which he said is “maybe the only way I'm going to get to heaven.”
“For evangelicals, for the Christians, for the everybody, for everybody of religion, this will be, may be, the most important election that our country has ever had,” Trump told a “Pastors in the Pews” meeting of evangelical leaders in Orlando. “And once I get in, I will do my thing that I do very well. And I figure it is probably, maybe the only way I'm going to get to heaven. So I better do a good job.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-heaven-president-pastors-226923#ixzz4H3apynff
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

He's got to be just saying random stuff now.

One of those pastors should tell him that the only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ. There is nothing Trump can "do" to "earn" salvation. Salvation is a gift from God, to those who accept Christ as their Lord and savior, who admit that they are wholly and completely incapable of saving themselves, and who repent of their sins.

If Trump wants to be a Christian, I wish that hw would, at least, understand the basics.Unfortunately, it seems as if he thinks so highly of himself that he believes that he is able to somehow save himself, without needing Jesus, and that leads only to condemnation. (no matter how "good" we may think we have been, or how many "good things" we think we have done.)

OMG LABRAAAAAAHHHHHHHNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!

Lol... I got a kick out of that

Republicans Blame Obama For Iraq When It Was Bush Who Signed The Agreement to Leave

Sun, Jun 15th, 2014 at 10:33 am


It is too bad Republicans lack any semblance of a memory dating back to before America invaded and conquered Iraq because the Bush administration saw an opportunity to enrich Dick Cheney’s company and kill Muslims. If they did, they would see a relatively stable region where Iran was not the dominant force in the area, radical Muslims were not attempting to overthrow Syria, Iraqi Sunni and Shia Muslims lived in peace in the same neighborhoods, and the idea of an Iraqi civil war was remote. However, Republicans can hardly remember what they lied about yesterday much less what Bush did thirteen years ago, so it is typical that they find no issue blaming the current situation in Iraq on President Obama.

What any of the Republicans blaming Obama for pulling American troops out of Iraq in 2011 should remember, is that in October 2008 George W. Bush was president when the Status of Forces Agreement was drafted and ratified by Iraqi lawmakers a month later in November 2008. The pertinent part of the agreement that President Obama honored was that, “All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.” Still, Republicans are assailing the President for abandoning Iraq they were fully prepared to continue occupying in perpetuity, and forget that besides Bush, an ill-advised strategy by former Republican man-god General David Patraeus mishandling of the so-called “surge” that created the militant insurgency threatening to completely tear Iraq apart and finish completely destabilizing the region Bush’s invasion started eleven years ago.

The sectarian war raging in Iraq today is the result of America’s allegedly successful effort to contain sectarian violence in Iraq through the so-called “surge” that is the reason for what is becoming a devastating and uncontrollable civil war in Iraq. It is important to remember that part and parcel of General David Patraeus’ strategy in the “surge” was arming and paying Iraqi Sunnis to assist Americans on the one hand, and the other allowing Iraqi Shias to cleanse entire neighborhoods of Sunnis who are now waging an insurgent war against government forces. Some of the arms the insurgency is using are holdover “gifts” Patraeus showered on them that were used in Syria and now Iraq. There is a reason Iran supports Iraq’s government forces and called on Shias to fight with Iraq’s national army and put down former Iraqi Sunnis who were attacked viciously by the majority Iraqi Shias during the American occupation. It is true that some of the blame clearly falls on Iraqi leader Maliki for religious sectarianism targeting Sunnis since before the insurgency began in earnest, and now the entire nation is paying a heavy price.

Iraqi leader Maliki, a Shia Muslim, has been heavily criticized for pursuing security policies that alienated ordinary Sunnis, such as sweeps that rounded up hundreds of men, innocent and guilty alike, and the arrest of the wives of suspected militants. According to a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq and now a visiting fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, James Jeffrey said, “they (Maliki’s army) had lost the support of the people because they had a sectarian policy, and I saw it with my own eyes.” No doubt many of the militants are driven by revenge and retribution for being driven out of their homes and massacred by the government under majority Shia control with assistance from Americans who failed to protect minority Sunnis on orders from Patraeus.

What is happening in Iraq is a continuation of the sectarian religious war, or civil war if it pleases, that began after America invaded and upset the balance that Saddam Hussein presided over. It is true Saddam was a tyrant, but there was relative calm and cooperation between minority Sunnis and Bathists in control of the government and the majority Shia population. After America overthrew Saddam’s government and installed a Shia majority, not only did predominately Shia Iran rise to power, Iraqi Shias embarked on a crusade to eradicate Sunnis and exact retribution against ordinary Sunnis. Now the shoe is on the other foot and seeing the gravity of the situation, Iraq’s Shiite religious authorities issued statements in support of the Shiite-dominated Iraqi army. The top Shiite spiritual leader in the world, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani gave his support to “the sons within the Iraqi security forces,” and a representative for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, urged Shiites to join the security forces to combat Sunni militants.

For their part, the militants are not out to massacre Iraqis and took care to warn off citizens from the danger of impending battles. Residents said when militants entered populated areas, “They greeted us, and when they saw that we were scared they said, ‘We are not here to fight you. Just stay away and do not interfere. We are here to fight Maliki’s army, not you.'”
Whatever is happening, or will happen, in Iraq is a direct and irrefutable result of America’s invasion and poorly administered war of occupation. None of the blame rests with the troops sent to fight and die in a completely unnecessary war of American aggression, any more than it is Barack Obama’s fault for honoring the agreement George W. Bush brokered in 2008 to withdraw American forces by December 2011.

Saddam Hussein may have been a tyrant, but while he was in power Sunnis and Shias were not involved in a sectarian religious war, Iran was not a regional power, and Syria was not threatened by Islamic extremists and civil war. Republicans learned absolutely nothing from the Iraq War debacle except that it was not white guy George W. Bush’s fault and like everything else they screwed up during their eight year reign of terror, they blame the African American man in the White House.
link

Dayum...almost 8 years later and Bush is still getting blamed?

O couldn't have just used an executive order to have the troops leave or something?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-republican-party-chairman-warning-100007199.html

RNC issues warning to Trumo.

Aug 11, 5:16 PM EDT

AP FACT CHECK: TRUMP WRONGLY CALLS OBAMA 'FOUNDER' OF IS


BY DEB RIECHMANN AND JON GAMBRELL
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Donald Trump says President Barack Obama is the "founder" of the Islamic State group. He's not, of course.

According to the GOP presidential nominee, Obama's decision to pull U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011 destabilized the Middle East and created a situation in which Islamic State militants could thrive. That's debatable, at least.

But to state that "Barack Hussein Obama" - as Trump put it to highlight the president's middle name given to him by his Kenyan-born father - actively worked to create the terrorist group is simply not accurate.

In fact, the United States is leading a coalition of some three dozen Western and Arab countries on a mission to destroy IS. Republicans argue his response has been tepid and incremental.

Trump made his allegation at a rally in Florida and repeated it Thursday. A look at his statements:

TRUMP: "He is the founder of ISIS," he said Wednesday night, using one acronym for Islamic State. On Thursday, he told CNBC: "He was the founder of ISIS, absolutely. The way he removed our troops. ... He shouldn't have got out the way he got out. It was a disaster what he did. "

Asked by conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt if he meant that Obama's decision to remove U.S. troops from Iraq left a vacuum for IS to grow, Trump replied:

"No, I meant that he's the founder of ISIS, I do."

THE FACTS: The founder of the group was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of al-Qaida in Iraq who was killed in a U.S. airstrike in 2006.

As for the manner of the U.S. withdrawal, Trump actually wanted U.S. troops out years earlier than Obama brought them out.

He told CNN in March 2007 that the U.S. should declare victory and get out because Iraq was going to get further bogged down in civil strife. He said the U.S. was "keeping a lid" on the situation by being there, but that when the U.S. leaves, "it's all going to blow up" so the U.S. might as well leave "because you just are wasting time."

---

TRUMP: "In many respects, you know, they (IS militants) honor President Obama."

THE FACTS: To the contrary, IS propaganda has shown fighters shooting targets bearing Obama's image. IS has beheaded captives while slurring Obama's name and suggested prices for enslaving his wife.

Before killing American-Israeli journalist Steven Sotloff in 2014, one IS militant said: "I'm back, Obama, and I'm back because of your arrogant foreign policy toward the Islamic State ... despite our serious warnings. So just as your missiles continue to strike our people, our knife will continue to strike the necks of your people."

Trump is echoing conspiracy theorists across the Middle East, including Iran's supreme leader and those he backs, such as Syrian officials and Hezbollah, a Shiite militant group. They have all over time accused the U.S. of creating or supporting the extremist group responsible for mass killings, beheadings and other atrocities in Iraq and Syria, as well as inspiring militant attacks across the world.

---

ISLAMIC STATE HISTORY IN BRIEF:

The Islamic State group began as the al-Qaida affiliate in Iraq. As AQI, the group carried out massive attacks against Iraq's Shiite Muslim majority, fueling tensions with al-Qaida's central leadership.

Before the U.S. left Iraq, military officials thought they had pretty much tamped down the Sunni militant extremists. IS, however, continued to gain strength as the U.S.-backed Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki led the country, favoring his fellow Shiites over Sunni Iraqis.

The civil war in neighboring Syria was another destabilizing factor that also gave IS room to grow and take over large areas of both countries to set up a self-declared caliphate. The rise of the group also can be attributed to its savvy in using social media to recruit fighters and followers and its ability to reap millions, including through smuggling oil.

Since the U.S.-led coalition began its anti-Islamic State campaign in 2014, the coalition has cut the numbers of IS core fighters by half, to about 15,000, and cost the group 45 percent of its territory, which once comprised one-third of Iraq and Syria. The U.S. has 3,830 military service personnel in Iraq, advising and training Iraqi ground forces, and 50 or so special operations forces in Syria.

But in 2011, before the Islamic State was lethal and as Obama was determined to keep his campaign promise to end the war started by President George W. Bush, Washington wanted to leave several thousand American troops in the country to train Iraqi security forces. Iraqi leaders, however, refused to give U.S. troops immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts, and the U.S. refused to stay without it. Al-Maliki told U.S. military officials that he did not have the votes in parliament to provide immunity to the American trainers.

Trump's commentary also seemed to echo an opinion expressed by a leader he says he respects, Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Late last year, Putin said that al-Qaida and IS were "actually a U.S. invention." Putin said the rebels that the United States has armed have sometimes switched to join extremist groups in Syria like the Islamic State.

link

Kinda like Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney & Powell going into Iraq even though the rest of the UN said "no"?

Yea, because that too wasn't a disaster and also ushered in what would later become known as ISIS.

Somehow, however, they seemed to get a pass and were even voted in for a 2nd term. At least Powell, to his credit, did the honorable thing and resigned.

Wait a minute. Bush, cheney, rumsfeld and powell went into Iraq?

It didn't take a congressional vote?

Hmmm....

Well since I was never a fan of the Bush administration, sure. It's probably a good thing that the Bush family won't endorse Trump's presidency. Bush had plenty of screw ups himself.

So to add to the mess I was posting yesterday about ISIS and refugees, we have this from Politico:

http://www.politico.eu/article/german-intelligence-warns-of-is-hit-squads-among-refugees/



By the way, this is the same Politico that had an agreement with the DNC to send a Clinton story over in advance, for their review. A similar arrangement has been made with CNN and MSNBC?, if I remember correctly (just pointing this out in the case somebody would be crazy enough to say one of these outlets was a right-wing source).

They didn't listen to the concerns or reservations of the UN...they wanted their war and by god they were going to get it. By hook or by crook. We paid the price for this decision and we continue to pay the price.

Just like Hillary was going to get her regime change in Libya, and to hell with what the Pentagon advised. Syria was another blunder-- I'll post some info about that at another time.

Maybe it's time to get an outsider in there, somebody who realizes this endless war crap is silly, and that whatever minor, short-term geopolitical advantages it might provide are far outweighed by the incredible pain and damage those wars cause.

A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for continued war, intervention, and regime change in the Middle East, Africa, and possibly beyond.

What led to ISIS was us overthrowing Sadam and invading Iraq for oil. Hell even Trump agrees with me that invading Iraq was a mistake.

j/c-- Kinda/sorta:

The majority of the posts by Trump supporters are about how terrible Hillary and the Dems are.

The majority of the posts by Hillary supporters are about how terrible Trump and Republicans are.

When are y'all going to wake up and make a stand against both of these turds and do the right thing by voting for Johnson?

“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”

We could generalize that by substituting 'negative piece' or whatever instead of 'lie'. I have no interest in spreading lies, not even about Hillary.

It's hard to defend a candidate because even if you come up with a comprehensive defense for a candidate, and I think I have tried to do that several times, it takes a lot of time and energy and only a small number of people are receptive to it. Meanwhile, the attack pieces keep on coming and it's hard to keep up. The result is that politics is mostly about staying on the offensive, it's sad, I wish it were not like that, but I'm just acknowledging how it is.

About Johnson: I do think he would be vastly better than Hillary. There are things in that platform I simply disagree with, just as there are things in Trump's platform that I don't agree with. Both are adequate candidates with reasonable but sometimes flawed ideologies. The overriding thing about Johnson and Trump is that only one of them has a chance to win.

I have been saying for years that the US needs a *viable* third party to really shake things up. 10 or maybe 15% of the vote is not viable. That percentage can cause some damage but, nothing that can even come close to winning. If, however, a candidate can potentially get 33% of the vote or close to that...it could be game on and we could all benefit from it.

That said, I don't know a lot about Johnson...I have read a bit, visited his site and he is still too close to the right for my politics. I actually think he will do more damage to the Republicans than the Dems as Trump has really divided the GOP. But, I do hope he gets into the main debates. That would be good and could help shake things up. Which, no matter where you stand politically I think we can all agree it needs to be shaken up, badly.

I have never been a believer in voting along party lines. I want the best candidate.

I think it's possible for the voting public to actually invoke some change in this election. Our country has never had two worse candidates from the top two parties.

Change is in the air, if only the American public has the backbone to fight for what is right.

Agreed. But, that candidate needs to also represent what I feel passionate about. Otherwise...nope. Johnson doesn't do that for me. At least not the research I have done on him.





It is. But, we also do not know that much about Johnson. Clinton has been in the public eye for 40+ years. Trump as well. The campaign has been going on for what seems like an eternity. There is plenty to know about them. Johnson is the new guy and I think he is getting some attention simply because "the grass is greener". Yet, we still know little about him as he has not presented himself on a public Presidential platform for the whole country/world to see. He hasn't had the ability to discuss his issues in depth nor has he had people challenge them and the ability to debate back to prove himself.

But, like I said...I want him to get into the debates. I want them to be healthy and full of intellectual discourse. Real debating and not just repulsive middle school arguing, bullying and fear tactics. I dread if they descend into the ignorant chaos we witnessed at the Republican debates.

I posted a few links here and there. You should check them out. If you can't find them, google Gary Johnson's platform.

You are a smart guy. Educate yourself.

It's time to stop the madness. At the very least, we can make a statement that we won't accept the crap the two-party system feeds us each election.

Voices matter.

Kinda/sorta related post here by Scott Adams

I've posted three or four of his blog posts before. To summarize, he does not like either candidate, officially supports Hillary because it is literally dangerous to be seen as being in any way supportive of Donald Trump where he lives in California, and focuses on persuasion and other outside-the-box issues in the election.

The few posts of his that I've shared have ranged from neutral to perhaps slightly pro-Trump. This one is really anti-both candidates but especially anti-Trump in a roundabout way when he talks about how ineffective it is to talk about policy. It's kind of a sombering take on American politics in general.

And finally, just because I post something like this doesn't mean I agree with every single thing that person has ever said, or even what is written here. It's thought-provoking and raises some good points. Hopefully others won't read too much more into it than that.

-----

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/148692199141/how-to-identify-the-brainwashed

In all fairness, it's not that easy when you have people getting murdered in the streets by Ghadaffi and Assad.

I mean, esp Libya. Women and children were getting shot by snipers in Tripoli when they would go outside their homes. I mean, Ghadaffi, dictator of his country, went and spent his country's money on mercenaries from outside African countries as his own freakin army.



It's not always as easy as you make it seem...................



And Iraq was a mistake. Yet Congress is just as much to blame as the Presidential Administration. So there. I just don't think it's as easy as saying "Despite this report" or "Despite this report". Innocent people were getting killed in the streets. Children shot by snipers. People begging us to do something/anything.

At least to me I think its shocking that everyone is not "all in" on Gary Johnson. He is the clear sane alternate to the crap choices we have and is a balance between two extremes. If he is not elected, I say shame on the public for making such continued flawed choices.

The problem is that if I vote for Gary Johnson it won't stop the Trump supporters from voting for Trump. Hillary is the only candidate with a chance to stop Trump. Trump must be stopped.

Sad but true and I hate it.

So I should vote for Trump because I feel that Hillary must not be allowed to win the Presidency under any circumstances?

The media in it's quest to bring down Donald Trump over his 2nd Amendment remarks forgets about Hillary Clintons remarks in 2008 but Keith Olbermann delivers a special comment about Hillary Clinton and her reference to Robert Kennedy's assassination back in 2008. Makes Mr. Trump look like an angel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLNFsl130_Y

Yo, seriously what the hell is this?

He makes the claim. Doubles down on it, and NOW it's sarcasm?

I thought he was a straight shooter, I thought he told it how it was.

Y'all say Hillary lies all the time. Ok.

So what is this? Lemme guess trump supporters, it's not a lie, it's just entertainment. He didn't really say this.


Dude is about to get smoked in the debates:

Trump backtracks on Obama as ISIL founder: 'They don't get sarcasm?'

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-obama-islamic-state-sarcasm-226947#ixzz4H7BeUzis
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

After doubling down on his assertion that President Barack Obama is the “founder” of the Islamic State, Donald Trump on Friday suggested he was being sarcastic.
“Ratings challenged @CNN reports so seriously that I call President Obama (and Clinton) ‘the founder’ of ISIS, & MVP,” Trump tweeted Friday morning. “THEY DON'T GET SARCASM?”
Story Continued Below

During a rally in Sunrise, Florida, on Wednesday, the Republican presidential nominee claimed Obama was the founder of the terrorist group.
“ISIS is honoring President Obama. He is the founder of ISIS,” Trump said. “He is the founder of ISIS, OK? He’s the founder. He founded ISIS. And I would say the co-founder would be crooked Hillary Clinton.”
But he didn’t stop there. The real estate mogul escalated his inflammatory claim multiple times on Thursday, including during a speech to the National Association of Home Builders in Miami.
“Our government isn’t giving us good protection. Our government has unleashed ISIS,” he said. “I call President Obama and Hillary Clinton the founders of ISIS. They’re the founders. In fact, I think we’ll give Hillary Clinton the — you know, if you’re on a sports team, most valuable player, MVP, you get the MVP award — ISIS will hand her the most valuable player award. Her only competition is Barack Obama.”

Trump’s comments in Miami bookended telephone interviews with CNBC and conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt on Thursday morning. Trump told “Squawk Box” that Obama and Clinton deserve the Islamic State’s most valuable player award and slammed shut the opening Hewitt gave him to clarify his remarks.
“I know what you meant. You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace,” Hewitt told Trump, to which Trump responded: “No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do.”

I understand, but like YTown said, people will also vote for Trump because they hate HIllary.

So, where does that leave us? I think the answer to that is in a bad place.

I typically don't invest much in these elections. I usually think both candidates are fairly lame and things won't change.

This time around........it's different. Trump is very dangerous and I fear for the safety of my children and future grandchildren. Hillary wants to tax the middle class right out of existence.

I truly believe that they are the two worst candidates to ever run in the same election.

Johnson offers an alternative. A safer, more sane alternative. I also believe that the voters finally have a real say on how things transpire moving forward.

Good changes take time. They come w/a price. The Civil Rights laws didn't happen overnight. The Labor Laws came about after an intense fight w/greedy politicians and manufacturers. The voice of the people invoked change.

We are at an precarious time in our nation's history. The time is ripe for those of us who are sick the political structure and corruption in this country to make a stand and once again.....invoke change that will eventually lead to a better day and a stronger country.

It won't be easy, but nothing good ever is.

Stand up and fight for the good of your country.

Just watched it again.. Trump said it. Sure as you were born...

You should vote your conscious. If you feel Hillary must be stopped then do what you have to do. I don't like her at all but I feel trump is dangerous, very dangerous. I want things to change, You all saw how much I wanted Bernie to win the primaries. But reality is setting in and in 3 months it will be Trump or Hillary that is elected. That sucks but that is what is going to happen.

I can't in good conscious sit at home and take a chance that Trump wins. If I vote and he wins at least I know I did my part to stop him.

Hillary may well end up being the worst of the worst. But I think Trump would be a nightmare and may very well destroy the country, or what's left of it anyway.