Posted on Oct 19, 2016
Do you think diehard Clinton and Trump supporters are completely blind to corruption, greed, and scandal?
20.3K
130
103
11
11
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: 45
23
23
0
I have yet to meet any Trump supporters who are "blind" to his many flaws. Hillary supporters on the other hand excuse hers away. It's understandable. A voter can accept Trump's flaws and still vote for him, reluctantly for sure. Anyone who accepts Hillary's flaws must turn away in disgust. They are so much more egregious.
(23)
(0)
PO2 Robert Aitchison
Cpl (Join to see) - Even if you think complete legislative gridlock is a good thing it's hard to argue that the lack of action on the many judicial vacancies is good for the country.
http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/more-than-50-federal-judge-nominees-waiting-on-senate/
http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/more-than-50-federal-judge-nominees-waiting-on-senate/
As time runs out, dozens of judge nominees waiting on Senate
WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal judges in New Jersey have struggled with a workload approaching 700 cases each, nearly double what's manageable, because of judicial vacancies. In Texas, close to a dozen district judgeships remain open, more than in any other...
(1)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
What I hear you saying, robert, is that judicial tyranny can't exist either. When partisan hacks appoint partisan hacks to the bench, you get a symbiotic executive/judicial tyranny. Either way, WE the people lose.
(2)
(0)
SFC Alfred Galloway
SSG Michael Hartsfield - I dont give a F about congress he or she will be the Commander IN chief, they will have at their beck and call the ablity to enforce laws or not, be able to issue edicts that usurp our congress, pick and appoint our future Supreme Court and lastly order your death as a soldier, sailor, airman or marine.. NO I wont turn a blind eye to Trump, however Hillary has proven over and over again to ME, that she is untrustworthy to hold the office of President of the USA. she has lied to you and I, he has willfully disregarded national security, classified document handling, taken classified information outside of secure channels and fragrantly defied DOS rules.
NO she is not worthy, Trump is not much better but still BETTER is BETTER
NO she is not worthy, Trump is not much better but still BETTER is BETTER
(3)
(0)
PO2 Robert Aitchison
Cpl (Join to see) - What I'm saying is that stonewalling/obstructionism on the part of the Republicans in the senate has resulted in a critical shortage of federal judges which is bad for everyone.
If you read the article I posted above you will note that many of the appointees are being selected in cooperation with the elected officials that represent the districts where the judge would be serving, that includes Republican officials. Still with the Senate Republicans refusing to even consider the appointees regardless of the judges political opinions nothing is being done. They are refusing to consider the judges for the sole reason that they are appointed by Obama and in doing so they are serving the desires of the party (to block everything Obama does no matter what it is) even if it harms the country.
I can tell you if this was how Republicans behaved when I was younger I never would have joined the party in the first place.
http://www.bna.com/federal-judge-shortages-n [login to see] 9/
If you read the article I posted above you will note that many of the appointees are being selected in cooperation with the elected officials that represent the districts where the judge would be serving, that includes Republican officials. Still with the Senate Republicans refusing to even consider the appointees regardless of the judges political opinions nothing is being done. They are refusing to consider the judges for the sole reason that they are appointed by Obama and in doing so they are serving the desires of the party (to block everything Obama does no matter what it is) even if it harms the country.
I can tell you if this was how Republicans behaved when I was younger I never would have joined the party in the first place.
http://www.bna.com/federal-judge-shortages-n [login to see] 9/
Federal Judge Shortages Take Toll on Business Litigation
The Senate's sluggish pace in filling federal judicial vacancies hits hardest in states where many of the largest U.S. businesses are based and threatens to delay resolution of key cases, including...
(2)
(0)
12
12
0
There are a FEW diehard supporters in either camp, but the majority who are voting for either candidate ( in this election ) are voting against the other. I am not voting for trump, I am voting against hillary and I suspect a lot of hillary supporters are saying the exact opposite.
(12)
(0)
MSgt James Mullis
SPC Don Wynn - Another wasted vote. But hey, in the end you can say "it wasn't my fault I voted for X". It won't be true, but you can say it.
(0)
(0)
SPC Don Wynn
MSgt James Mullis - Well Top, if we get enough to vote for a third party, we might actually get a third party that would be a counter balance to the two we currently have.
(0)
(0)
MSgt James Mullis
SPC Don Wynn - That's not happening this election, it's literary impossible for either of the third parties to win. The only chance you have of affecting the outcome is a vote for either Trump our Hillary.
(1)
(0)
I think if there was of a no confidence vote option, which forced the parties to start from scratch and choose more palatable candidates for the people to chose from, that is an option many would take...
But our system of election has no such option...it was built assuming, one candidate would be a "Good" choice, not just one, less worse than the other..
But our system of election has no such option...it was built assuming, one candidate would be a "Good" choice, not just one, less worse than the other..
(9)
(0)
SGM Erik Marquez
CPT Jack Durish - Sir I suppose if such an option was in the system and with it came ramifications for failure to bring qualified candidates to us for the choosing.... that might help..
Or, again assuming the party in question desires to stay relevant..and we "vote" to not choose thier candidate, the next time they might be inclined to put one up we would support. ...or they risk not having a candidate in the running at all.
Or, again assuming the party in question desires to stay relevant..and we "vote" to not choose thier candidate, the next time they might be inclined to put one up we would support. ...or they risk not having a candidate in the running at all.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google