I think he was just pointing out her overall personality. Nailed it in one take.

i was referring specifically to when the one guy said something along the lines of the email scandal matters because we have to worry about credibility and ethics, etc. and the moderator said would you like to respond? to hillary. and she said "no" in a very icy and condescending tone. and her fans went crazy and clapped for her. because they are loyal members of the clinton colony and she is their ant queen.

edit-

also, chula, the difference between you with trump and me with hillary is that i am honest about my feelings on hillary: i just don't like the broad. she rubs me the wrong way. policy wise, i don't even care if she becomes prez. won't hurt me. i just like attacking her cause her personality is so ****.

where as you pretend to be "amused" by trump but we can all tell you're boiling with hatred for him.

I hate his kind.

I'd vote for Trump before Clinton and I'm adamantly opposed to the bulk of his views. No more halfassed presidents, give us a good one to maybe get some things done or a horrible one to teach people a lesson about being politically and economically uninformed.

BUILD A GIANT WALL. INCREASE SPENDING. CUT TAXES. THE DEFICIT WILL COLLAPSE UPON ITSELF. VIVA LA HAIRPIECE.

I'd vote for Trump because he's not bought and paid for. He's the only candidate outside Bernie Sanders that is entirely self funding.

Hillary Clinton Super Pac's are funded by every big bank and hedge fund organization, on wall street, not to mention all the special interest groups she's got lobbying for her. She's the most bought and paid for candidate out there next to George Bush and Rubio.

To be frank I think Trump would do a fair bit worse than any bought and paid for politician. I mean the man seems to have legitimately no idea how the system of checks and balances works or... anything. But it could be healthy to hit rock bottom. It feels like honestly nothing would get done.

He beats China every day so if he becomes president thr US economy will outgrow that of China, with their population of billions.

I think there is a big difference, most notably on economic policy. It's not a coincidence that free trade and offshoring have continued unabated President after President, though in fairness Obama has given a run at things.

There is no big difference between Bush and Clinton on economic policy other than their view on social programs, neither of them will slap tariffs on foreign goods or close tax loopholes for offshoring, or attempt to protect manufacturing plants from leaving the US.

You can implement all the Rand Paul policies you want, but if all the good jobs leave the US, your going to be F'n broke, hence the current economic strain on the rust belt States.

The average American is making a lot less than they were in the 1970's and the cost of everything from property to food and commodities has gone up and up, which is why Trump and Sanders are popular.

That all amounts to **** if Trump has no idea how to govern. Just because he says things you like, or at least that you like better than the other guys, doesn't mean that he has any capability to implement them.

This is another thing that bugs me about the way people vote: they do so either by how likable a candidate is, or whether or not they like what the candidate claims to stand for, but at no point does anyone seem to consider whether the person they're voting for is actually competent to govern -- unless of course they're just trying to argue against someone they're already against (like the Republicans against Obama, or the Dems against Palin.)

Big issue here is people think any president would or could fix it. Even if someone with the interest in actually improving the lives of Americans came around they would need more congressional support than they could dream of, not to mention the intense amounts of outcry there would be from the C student majority when they see numbers presented in a negative way and can't understand it. Like all those people who were up in arms over the ACA and then agreed with every tenant when someone just avoided calling it "Obamacare". Everyone wants a magical overnight fix that is simple to the point of someone who ended their education at high school in the 70s understanding it. Americans are unrealistic.

Eisenhower had no governing experience, and he was a good President. Trump is a successful business man who made the Forbes list countless of times over the decades, and I tend to be privy to people who have a lot of financial experience.

I believe you voted for Obama last election, and before entering the senate he was a civil rights lawyer, he had much less governing experience than Mitt Romney who was the governor of Massachusetts.

and yes I would have voted Obama over Romney to, because I think the later is a dink.

If you want governing experience both Jeb Bush, and Chris Christie are on the ticket. Trump is smart enough though, to have a strong team around him.