played it, beat it. SO what would you have him say that is OK with your morals? I mean, you know why we invented them right?
a candidate at this stage that doesn't a firm handle on the concerns of using nukes shouldn't be considered. seriously, people are supporting an elitist, draft dodger, that gets his military advice from "watching the shows".
And some are supporting an elitist master, who lied about being rejected by the Marine Corps and who lied about landing under sniper fire, and who lied about the cause of Benghazi, and whose foundation accepts millions from the Saudis, and who, as Secretary of State, set up a private server in her home without telling anyone.....yeah, I understand why SHE is such a strong candidate to make decisions about nuclear weapons.
again, deflection. that's your new handle. deflection. how can you support getting military advice from the shows? answer or deflection?
And your new handle is #hillary'sjockridesgreat I've said repeatedly that both check off many of the same boxes. The biggest difference is that Trump can't and won't get much done that he claims. Hillary OTOH is business as usual which is lying, covering up, corruption, and an ever-expanding federal government. She is so much scarier than the worst Trump could be.
Her abuse of power has been and is, stunning to say the least. The deals she made as SoS are just one example of what you ask. The millions she has accepted from certain groups and countries is another. What do you think Washington meant in that passage? Do you think he had no perspective or that a "free election" wasn't part of the scene back then?
As opposed to a candidate who doesnt have a firm handle on proper handling of our secrets and classified information?
IM amazed we are actually having to discuss what a private citizen has done to make money vs a public servant making millions while serving the interest of who again?
