Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Options

CIA labels Trump 'threat to national security'

2

Comments

  • Options
    2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes
    Sledog said:

    2001400ex said:

    Swaye said:

    OZONE said:

    But unsecured servers aren't an issue

    As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.
    You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.
    Yet, after several investigations, there's been zero evidence any breech occurred.

    Not defending, pointing out a fact. So don't twist.
    The extent of her treasonous actions will never be known. Too embarrassing for the country and Owebama.
    That doesn't mean what you think it means.

    Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

    The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

    The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby crimes including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."[15]

    Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were essentially five species of treason.[citation needed] Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king, certain types of counterfeiting, and finally fornication with women in the royal family of the sort which could call into question the parentage of successors. James Wilson wrote the original draft of this section, and he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason against the Patriot cause.

    Section 3 also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same overt act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason. This rule was derived from an older English statute, the Treason Act 1695.[16]

    In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that "[e]very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses."[17] In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent, nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).

    Punishment for treason may not "work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person" so convicted. The descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered "tainted" by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, Congress may confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted.

    In Federalist No. 43 James Madison wrote regarding the Treason Clause:

    As treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author.

    Based on the above quotation, it was noted by the lawyer William J. Olson in an amicus curiae in the case Hedges v. Obama that the Treason Clause was one of the enumerated powers of the federal government.[18] He also stated that by defining treason in the U.S. Constitution and placing it in Article III "the founders intended the power to be checked by the judiciary, ruling out trials by military commissions. As James Madison noted, the Treason Clause also was designed to limit the power of the federal government to punish its citizens for “adhering to [the] enemies [of the United States by], giving them aid and comfort.”"[18]
  • Options
    TierbsHsotBoobsTierbsHsotBoobs Member Posts: 39,680
    Combo Breaker 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Anniversary
    2001400ex said:

    Sledog said:

    2001400ex said:

    Swaye said:

    OZONE said:

    But unsecured servers aren't an issue

    As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.
    You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.
    Yet, after several investigations, there's been zero evidence any breech occurred.

    Not defending, pointing out a fact. So don't twist.
    The extent of her treasonous actions will never be known. Too embarrassing for the country and Owebama.
    That doesn't mean what you think it means.

    Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

    The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

    The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby crimes including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."[15]

    Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were essentially five species of treason.[citation needed] Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king, certain types of counterfeiting, and finally fornication with women in the royal family of the sort which could call into question the parentage of successors. James Wilson wrote the original draft of this section, and he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason against the Patriot cause.

    Section 3 also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same overt act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason. This rule was derived from an older English statute, the Treason Act 1695.[16]

    In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that "[e]very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses."[17] In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent, nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).

    Punishment for treason may not "work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person" so convicted. The descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered "tainted" by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, Congress may confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted.

    In Federalist No. 43 James Madison wrote regarding the Treason Clause:

    As treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author.

    Based on the above quotation, it was noted by the lawyer William J. Olson in an amicus curiae in the case Hedges v. Obama that the Treason Clause was one of the enumerated powers of the federal government.[18] He also stated that by defining treason in the U.S. Constitution and placing it in Article III "the founders intended the power to be checked by the judiciary, ruling out trials by military commissions. As James Madison noted, the Treason Clause also was designed to limit the power of the federal government to punish its citizens for “adhering to [the] enemies [of the United States by], giving them aid and comfort.”"[18]
    Agree
  • Options
    HoustonHuskyHoustonHusky Member Posts: 5,956
    First Anniversary First Comment Photogenic 5 Awesomes
    OZONE said:

    Oh, and here is food for thought.

    There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).

    They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.

    And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...
  • Options
    TierbsHsotBoobsTierbsHsotBoobs Member Posts: 39,680
    Combo Breaker 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Anniversary

    OZONE said:

    Oh, and here is food for thought.

    There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).

    They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.

    And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...
    None of them started World War 3.
  • Options
    BearsWiinBearsWiin Member Posts: 4,969
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment

    OZONE said:

    Oh, and here is food for thought.

    There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).

    They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.

    And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...
    It's easy and lazy to shit on the job that somebody does, when you have no fucking clue what the job entails
  • Options
    SledogSledog Member Posts: 31,307
    5 Up Votes First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes
    2001400ex said:

    Sledog said:

    2001400ex said:

    Swaye said:

    OZONE said:

    But unsecured servers aren't an issue

    As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.
    You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.
    Yet, after several investigations, there's been zero evidence any breech occurred.

    Not defending, pointing out a fact. So don't twist.
    The extent of her treasonous actions will never be known. Too embarrassing for the country and Owebama.
    That doesn't mean what you think it means.

    Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

    The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

    The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby crimes including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."[15]

    Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were essentially five species of treason.[citation needed] Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king, certain types of counterfeiting, and finally fornication with women in the royal family of the sort which could call into question the parentage of successors. James Wilson wrote the original draft of this section, and he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason against the Patriot cause.

    Section 3 also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same overt act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason. This rule was derived from an older English statute, the Treason Act 1695.[16]

    In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that "[e]very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses."[17] In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent, nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).

    Punishment for treason may not "work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person" so convicted. The descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered "tainted" by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, Congress may confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted.

    In Federalist No. 43 James Madison wrote regarding the Treason Clause:

    As treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author.

    Based on the above quotation, it was noted by the lawyer William J. Olson in an amicus curiae in the case Hedges v. Obama that the Treason Clause was one of the enumerated powers of the federal government.[18] He also stated that by defining treason in the U.S. Constitution and placing it in Article III "the founders intended the power to be checked by the judiciary, ruling out trials by military commissions. As James Madison noted, the Treason Clause also was designed to limit the power of the federal government to punish its citizens for “adhering to [the] enemies [of the United States by], giving them aid and comfort.”"[18]
    And where does arming ISIS and Al Qaueda fall on your scale Hondo?
  • Options
    HoustonHuskyHoustonHusky Member Posts: 5,956
    First Anniversary First Comment Photogenic 5 Awesomes
    BearsWiin said:

    OZONE said:

    Oh, and here is food for thought.

    There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).

    They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.

    And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...
    It's easy and lazy to shit on the job that somebody does, when you have no fucking clue what the job entails
    'Middle East is up in flames and hordes of refugees are flooding the world, but at least the world didn't end so how could anyone question the "great" job being done'

    Brilliant.
  • Options
    BallSackedBallSacked Member Posts: 3,279
    5 Up Votes First Anniversary Name Dropper First Comment

    BearsWiin said:

    OZONE said:

    Oh, and here is food for thought.

    There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).

    They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.

    And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...
    It's easy and lazy to shit on the job that somebody does, when you have no fucking clue what the job entails
    'Middle East is up in flames and hordes of refugees are flooding the world, but at least the world didn't end so how could anyone question the "great" job being done'

    Brilliant.
    So the solution is Donald Trump?
  • Options
    HoustonHuskyHoustonHusky Member Posts: 5,956
    First Anniversary First Comment Photogenic 5 Awesomes

    BearsWiin said:

    OZONE said:

    Oh, and here is food for thought.

    There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).

    They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.

    And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...
    It's easy and lazy to shit on the job that somebody does, when you have no fucking clue what the job entails
    'Middle East is up in flames and hordes of refugees are flooding the world, but at least the world didn't end so how could anyone question the "great" job being done'

    Brilliant.
    So the solution is Donald Trump?
    A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

    I'd trust him over a proven liar that set a few more Middle Eastern countries ablaze in her limited tenure as Sec of State.
  • Options
    TierbsHsotBoobsTierbsHsotBoobs Member Posts: 39,680
    Combo Breaker 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Anniversary

    BearsWiin said:

    OZONE said:

    Oh, and here is food for thought.

    There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).

    They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.

    And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...
    It's easy and lazy to shit on the job that somebody does, when you have no fucking clue what the job entails
    'Middle East is up in flames and hordes of refugees are flooding the world, but at least the world didn't end so how could anyone question the "great" job being done'

    Brilliant.
    So the final solution is Donald Trump?
  • Options
    RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 102,122
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    Swaye's Wigwam
    BearsWiin said:

    OZONE said:

    Oh, and here is food for thought.

    There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).

    They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.

    And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...
    It's easy and lazy to shit on the job that somebody does, when you have no fucking clue what the job entails
    Well said brents
  • Options
    BallSackedBallSacked Member Posts: 3,279
    5 Up Votes First Anniversary Name Dropper First Comment
    edited August 2016

    BearsWiin said:

    OZONE said:

    Oh, and here is food for thought.

    There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).

    They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.

    And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...
    It's easy and lazy to shit on the job that somebody does, when you have no fucking clue what the job entails
    'Middle East is up in flames and hordes of refugees are flooding the world, but at least the world didn't end so how could anyone question the "great" job being done'

    Brilliant.
    So the solution is Donald Trump?
    A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

    I'd trust him over a proven liar that set a few more Middle Eastern countries ablaze in her limited tenure as Sec of State.
    I'd say it's more insane to think a egomaniac real estate developer with no experience and who openly questions "why can't we use nuclear weapons" is a better option

    jmo.
  • Options
    RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 102,122
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    Swaye's Wigwam
    Nukes only work if you think the son of a bitch is crazy enough to use them.
  • Options
    TierbsHsotBoobsTierbsHsotBoobs Member Posts: 39,680
    Combo Breaker 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Anniversary

    BearsWiin said:

    OZONE said:

    Oh, and here is food for thought.

    There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).

    They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.

    And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...
    It's easy and lazy to shit on the job that somebody does, when you have no fucking clue what the job entails
    'Middle East is up in flames and hordes of refugees are flooding the world, but at least the world didn't end so how could anyone question the "great" job being done'

    Brilliant.
    So the solution is Donald Trump?
    A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

    I'd trust him over a proven liar that set a few more Middle Eastern countries ablaze in her limited tenure as Sec of State.
    I'd say it's more insane to think a egomaniac real estate developer with no experience and who openly questions "why can't we use nuclear weapons".

    jmo.
    No I will not jack you off
  • Options
    BallSackedBallSacked Member Posts: 3,279
    5 Up Votes First Anniversary Name Dropper First Comment
    edited August 2016

    Nukes only work if you think the son of a bitch is crazy enough to use them.

    No, it only works if you don't use them because otherwise Mutual Assured Mass Destruction.

    You know this already, but still...
  • Options
    HoustonHuskyHoustonHusky Member Posts: 5,956
    First Anniversary First Comment Photogenic 5 Awesomes
    edited August 2016

    BearsWiin said:

    OZONE said:

    Oh, and here is food for thought.

    There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).

    They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.

    And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...
    It's easy and lazy to shit on the job that somebody does, when you have no fucking clue what the job entails
    'Middle East is up in flames and hordes of refugees are flooding the world, but at least the world didn't end so how could anyone question the "great" job being done'

    Brilliant.
    So the solution is Donald Trump?
    A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

    I'd trust him over a proven liar that set a few more Middle Eastern countries ablaze in her limited tenure as Sec of State.
    I'd say it's more insane to think a egomaniac real estate developer with no experience and who openly questions "why can't we use nuclear weapons".

    jmo.
    You aren't naive enough to think anybody running for Prez isn't an egomaniac? And, again if the experience is utter shite what does that mean again?

    I'd say it's much more idiotic to think somebody worth over a billion dollars is clueless...
  • Options
    TierbsHsotBoobsTierbsHsotBoobs Member Posts: 39,680
    Combo Breaker 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Anniversary

    BearsWiin said:

    OZONE said:

    Oh, and here is food for thought.

    There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).

    They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.

    And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...
    It's easy and lazy to shit on the job that somebody does, when you have no fucking clue what the job entails
    'Middle East is up in flames and hordes of refugees are flooding the world, but at least the world didn't end so how could anyone question the "great" job being done'

    Brilliant.
    So the solution is Donald Trump?
    A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

    I'd trust him over a proven liar that set a few more Middle Eastern countries ablaze in her limited tenure as Sec of State.
    I'd say it's more insane to think a egomaniac real estate developer with no experience and who openly questions "why can't we use nuclear weapons".

    jmo.
    Are you dumb enough to think anybody running for Prez isn't an egomaniac? And, again if the experience is utter shite what does that mean again?

    I'd say it's much more idiotic to think somebody worth over a billion dollars is clueless...
    When did you see his tax returns?
  • Options
    RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 102,122
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    Swaye's Wigwam

    Nukes only work if you think the son of a bitch is crazy enough to use them.

    No, it only works if you don't use them because otherwise Mutual Assured Mass Destruction.

    You know this already, but still...
    Carter and Obama are pussies who said we'd never use them first.

    Reagan was the fucking cowboy who would blow up the world. Allegedly.

    Peace thru strength. Work means freedom
  • Options
    BallSackedBallSacked Member Posts: 3,279
    5 Up Votes First Anniversary Name Dropper First Comment

    BearsWiin said:

    OZONE said:

    Oh, and here is food for thought.

    There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).

    They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.

    And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...
    It's easy and lazy to shit on the job that somebody does, when you have no fucking clue what the job entails
    'Middle East is up in flames and hordes of refugees are flooding the world, but at least the world didn't end so how could anyone question the "great" job being done'

    Brilliant.
    So the solution is Donald Trump?
    A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

    I'd trust him over a proven liar that set a few more Middle Eastern countries ablaze in her limited tenure as Sec of State.
    I'd say it's more insane to think a egomaniac real estate developer with no experience and who openly questions "why can't we use nuclear weapons".

    jmo.
    I'd say it's much more idiotic to think somebody worth over a billion dollars is clueless...
    It's not. You're just being obtuse. HTH.

    And for the record - Donald inherited his money and has used it to underperform the S&P500. I know troomps hate facts, but still...
Sign In or Register to comment.