"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
Ed, all I'm saying is be equally critical. I can see where you are coming from in some ways.Ed: I don't love her, Phil, but I think the Freedom Caucus is worse.
I realize we are not going to agree politically and we have had all kinds of discussions about politics.I just think people like you underestimate how tired the American people are of politicians,so that even if we ignored all of Hillary's lies,corruption,scandles,etc when you claim she is qualified to be President you really don't understand how bad that is. I mean we had two candidates both Trump and Sanders that ran on the corruption of politicians and both were very popular in this election. Bernie actually beat Hillary but it was stolen away from him by the DNC and so when you say Hillary is qualified? You are totally out of step with how fed up people are of politicians in both parties.edwardmurphy wrote:It's tough to treat Clinton and Trump equally critically. I have significant issues with both of them as human beings, but I think Clinton is far, far more qualified to be president than Trump. You might not agree with her ideas, but there's no denying that she understands the issues. Besides, what could I possibly say about Clinton that Rick, or ACB, or whoever hasn't already covered?
Ok, for the sake of argument let's assume that that's all of your criticisms are true. It hardly matters if the alternative is worse. Do you have some sort of evidence that that's not the case?RickD wrote:Honestly,
What's not to like about Hillary? She's honest, trustworthy, she cares for the little people, she has the support of her husband and all his girlfriends, she's clearly not a bitter old lady, her time spent in political office, clearly shows she knows how to handle top secret information, she's honest, trustworthy...
Did I miss anything?