Posted on Oct 19, 2016
Do you think diehard Clinton and Trump supporters are completely blind to corruption, greed, and scandal?
21.8K
123
100
10
10
0
It seems to me diehard frontrunner supporters put on massive blinders to their respective favorites glaring flaws. Neither candidate is fit for the role of President. Both are a brilliant display of the flaws in the system. Are we all just too accepting of the status quo?
Posted in these groups: 
Office of the President (POTUS)
Election 2016
Elections
Democrats
Republicans
Office of the President (POTUS) Election 2016 Elections Democrats Republicans
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 44
2
2
0
So what now? And how long would we be w/o leadership? And, because Hillary is engaged in some REAL corruption, they take preemptive shots at Trump. If by default Hillary wins, it would because of apathy and a political naivete or just plain parochrialism. My daddy voted rep/dem and so will I. No one is really ready to be president, and then again, no one has gone around the legislature, ostensibly because there is gridlock.
The point is, this becomes 'talking points' and PC. Dogmas are so ingrained. For example: Give me one program on TV that ever really supports the right/conservative? And do not give me some far-flung intended meaning. So, by saying both parties are corrupt, you are equivocating or in Hillary's case, deflecting.
If Americans are sick and tired of corruption, let's effect change. Not spew hateful rhetoric in an attempt to marginalize an opponent. Only an idiot would put their faith in a lying, socipathic menace. Hillary. America wants change, not neo-political bullshit. Not losing or our right of self-determinization. And not by spending peoples monies on frivilous pork barrel projects.
When Nixon was impeached, it was non-partisan. It was the quest for truth. Of all people, Hillary has done far more than Nixon ever done. She actually our country at risk. Weakened the militaty, all for naked gain and aggression. So the both parties are corrupt, is to give this election, by default to Hillary. PO2 (Anonymous) Are you bing stalked, ED?
The point is, this becomes 'talking points' and PC. Dogmas are so ingrained. For example: Give me one program on TV that ever really supports the right/conservative? And do not give me some far-flung intended meaning. So, by saying both parties are corrupt, you are equivocating or in Hillary's case, deflecting.
If Americans are sick and tired of corruption, let's effect change. Not spew hateful rhetoric in an attempt to marginalize an opponent. Only an idiot would put their faith in a lying, socipathic menace. Hillary. America wants change, not neo-political bullshit. Not losing or our right of self-determinization. And not by spending peoples monies on frivilous pork barrel projects.
When Nixon was impeached, it was non-partisan. It was the quest for truth. Of all people, Hillary has done far more than Nixon ever done. She actually our country at risk. Weakened the militaty, all for naked gain and aggression. So the both parties are corrupt, is to give this election, by default to Hillary. PO2 (Anonymous) Are you bing stalked, ED?
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I think the best response I've seen so far this election cycle went like this:
Hillary Clinton could be on National television boiling a vat of 30 newborn live puppies and her supporters would say, "oh, she's just trying to feed the poor starving people!"
Hillary Clinton could be on National television boiling a vat of 30 newborn live puppies and her supporters would say, "oh, she's just trying to feed the poor starving people!"
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
If we get even 40% of what Trumps says we'll be lucky. If we get 100% of what Clinton says we'll be sorry!
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Recognizing the keyword "diehard", the answer to your title question" is "YES!" Those in the most diehard 10% are those of whom Trump spoke when he said he could stand on 5th Avenue, shoot someone and he wouldn't lose support. And, similarly, Clinton's diehards would support her if she shot back. Thankfully there are enough rational people in this great nation who will collectively make the best decision regarding the flawed candidates presented to us all.
(2)
(0)
(Join to see)
Typical. MSgt Jack DeYoung finally apologized. Even though he said he never would apologize until Col David Lowry apologized first. MSGT Jack DeYoung said, " I do apologize for my part in this....I just don't like bullies and if he did it to me what's to say that he wouldn't do it to someone else. That's just the old dirty crew dog in me.....I have always been that way. Once again I apologize to those that became offended by my role in this post."
What a crock. Obviously, it was not a sincere or heartfelt apology. He just did it to cover his behind. He apologized only to to the readers of Rally Point. He never directly apologized to Col Lowry. So, his apology was a huge nothing burger, because he is a coward. When will folks like this ever learn? Threatening fellow service members on Rally Point is never a good idea. I guess MSgt Jack DeYoung learned his lesson the hard way. It's also worthy to note that Col Lowry did not apologize. IMHO, he had nothing to apologize for. He simply stated his opinion and backed it up with facts. If MSgt Jack De Young was offended by that opinion (and he was) then MSgt Jack DeYoung would have been better off retreating to a safe space with his security blanket and thumb fully inserted in the appropriate orifice.
What a crock. Obviously, it was not a sincere or heartfelt apology. He just did it to cover his behind. He apologized only to to the readers of Rally Point. He never directly apologized to Col Lowry. So, his apology was a huge nothing burger, because he is a coward. When will folks like this ever learn? Threatening fellow service members on Rally Point is never a good idea. I guess MSgt Jack DeYoung learned his lesson the hard way. It's also worthy to note that Col Lowry did not apologize. IMHO, he had nothing to apologize for. He simply stated his opinion and backed it up with facts. If MSgt Jack De Young was offended by that opinion (and he was) then MSgt Jack DeYoung would have been better off retreating to a safe space with his security blanket and thumb fully inserted in the appropriate orifice.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
MSgt John McGowan
SrA Edward Vong - The way the banks are going makes me wonder what will happen to our money. A huge number of elderly have what they have and no way to make more. If we old folks lose money what then? Think a Syrians will invite or share with us. We already know they are treated better than vets.
(1)
(0)
SrA Edward Vong
MSgt John McGowan
Actually if you want to further inquiry with how your retirement may be affected, feel free to message me directly. I'd rather not make certain comments public.
Actually if you want to further inquiry with how your retirement may be affected, feel free to message me directly. I'd rather not make certain comments public.
(0)
(0)
CPT Alexander Grant
ah you must benefit heavily off the military-industrial complex or some other form of exploitation. good for you
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
SSG (Join to see) I think that this administration (Obama) is the gold standard for corruption and crime.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
They are blinded by emotion and today's electronic media, which is far from truthful or accurate.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
Right now we do not have a viable other. The tragic and funny thing is we did it to ourselves.
(1)
(0)
PO1 Henry Jackson
PO2 William Allen Crowder - George open borders soros, and muslim despots that abuse women, LGBT people, and minorities That sounds kinda, never mind, carry on.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
They don't care about corruption as long as it is on their side. What has the Democrats freaked out is that the Republicans have started to play by their "dirty tricks/anything goes" rules.
(1)
(0)
Capt (Join to see)
Oh my and sending people in to incite violence at the opponents rally is not dirty tricks?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google