[Fox] O'Reilly: At Least 3 Media Orgs Have 'Ordered Employees to Destroy Trump'

So, I have done nothing really that bad in my life, does that mean I am more competent to run for president than Hillary? Trump is about as qualified as I am, just a private sector individual who has never been in politics and doesn't know what he's doing, only a lot more racist, a lot more misogynist, and A LOT more unstable.

 

Thanks for answering my question.

 

Hillary has some flaws but is objectively more equipped to run a country than Trump. Look at her resume compared to Trump when it comes to politics. She also has policies that I (and the majority of Americans) agree with. That alone makes her better than Trump, who has no experience, and has terrible policies that are just BS.

When you have a candidate who
1. Has no experience
2. Has questionable morality
3. Has awful policies that marginalize specific groups of people
4. Has been shown to be unstable and loony

You have to be an absolute dumbass to support him.

 

There is an answer.

Hilary has a track record of failing in politics.

 

What's really comical is that the order to destroy him was followed by the admonition that they could only use his own words, deeds, and actions as ammunition.

 

I called Trump incompetent and you never disagreed with me after multiple posts.

 

He is incompetent. But he is more competent than Hilary.

 

define competency, I already laid out the 4 reasons I say Trump is way more incompetent than Hillary. That isn't to say there aren't WAY MORE things I can list if I had unlimited time on my hands.

1. Has no experience
2. Has questionable morality
3. Has awful policies that marginalize specific groups of people
4. Has been shown to be unstable and loony

 

Hilary

Has no presidential experience.
Has no morality
Has no true policies(she flip flops like no other, and piggy backed repeatedly on Bernie Sanders to stop the bleeding)
Has shown to be unstable.

Trump's profession is based off of his ability to put qualified people in positions to be successful. Please research more on Bill Clinton's terms as president where he gave Hilary some responsibility. It did not go well. It still hasn't improved.

I trust Trump to put the right people in position to run this country. He's been doing it successfully more times than not.

 

That would be a story if there were actually any evidence. There is none. Bill has not given any evidence, and the OP has zero evidence.

On another note, Hillary has accomplished more in the public service than Trump ever has. Trump has pledged to pursue war crimes as part of his foreign policy. Trump has pledged to appoint justices to the supreme court who will take away rights that we currently have. So a vote for Trump is a vote to lose rights as well as a vote for war crimes. Trump has pledged to pursue an immigration policy that has already been deemed unconstitutional.

Hillary is dishonest and I don't trust her as far as I can spit. I won't be voting for her. But if the state I live in was at all in question of going for Trump I would vote for Hillary. She is far more qualified. She has brokered cease fires, she helped negotiate a halt to the Iranian nuclear program, she helped pursue the the efforts that took out Bin Laden. As a NY Senator, She got workers who were heroes on 9/11 some of the help they needed. She worked and lobbied for funds to help NYC after the attacks, She's helped get children insurance. Trump hasn't even attempted much less succeeded at doing anything in the public service. He's done nothing.

He's lied about the charity he's done, and how much he's given. He's lied about Hillary Clinton's record. He's a fool. He's advocated giving nukes to S. Korea, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and others. In the debates he's shown he doesn't even have a grasp of the basic facts of foreign policy or even domestic policy. I can half a dozen posters on this board who more about policy and governing than Trump.

 

If true, then

 

Right now, based on public statements and reporting, that's looking like Gingrich, Rudy (Homeland Security?), Christie (rumored for Justice of all things), Don Jr. (Interior? - because he hates the restrictions on trophy hunting), the head of Lucas Oil, Bossie, Bannon, Conway, Carson, Sessions, Flynn, Duncan Hunter, Tom Cotton, Gowdy, Roger Stone, Stephen Moore, and other lessers.

Not exactly the best and the brightest or the most forward-looking, but perhaps the least sane.

 

Every election at least one major party candidate has no presidential experience. Clinton does have established policies and has taken actual political stances on things (i.e. votes). You may not agree with her stance, but to suggest she has NO policies is ridiculously wrong.

Define unstable.

 

Well that's speculation at the moment.

Let's look at Clinton's past in regards to her responsibility of putting people in to positions. Trust me, you don't want to.

Let's look at Kaine vs Pence.

 

She doesn't have policies. Her recent leaked emails shows her staff tells her what to say. Bill and Hilary don't even believe in gay marriage. She has already came out and said her public and private beliefs differ. Who are you really voting for?

 

https://www.congress.gov/member/hillary-clinton/C001041

What policies as Senator exactly are so controversial and damning that makes you think she failed as a Senator? Look through what she supported.

-Equal pay for minorities and women
-More affordable and better quality healthcare for children and veterans
-Studies on carbon emission
-Less taxes for single parents
-Funding for privatized home schooling

She won re-election as Senator with almost 2/3rd approval rating in her state. Clearly she must have been doing some things right.

Again from just a quick gloss at her track record, she clearly hasn't failed at politics. She's competed twice for the highest seat of power and is likely going to win the 2nd time around after 8 years of having a Democratic President. The only person she lost to is the guy who would later go on to become President for 8 years. Again she must be doing some things right.

 

We get it. She is better than Trump. Its a very fair argument.

But stop pretending she is a great politician. You're being a democrat homer and no different than those who are straight ticket voting for Trump.

She supports anything that will get her elected. She stands for nothing.

 

Haha, Clinton has public sector experience and has helped millions of people around the country. Clinton can name multiple things that she has done in which she has put others before herself. Trump has done nothing, he called creating jobs "sacrifice" which shows how delusional he is. He is a braggadocious person and has not displayed compassion ever. His apology for the locker room banter was pathetic and insincere.

Clinton has no true policies? Remember when TRUMP was a registered Democrat? Now he's a Republican? haha

Clinton is unstable? Is Hillary Clinton going after former Miss Universe contestants? Insulted war heroes? Says she's willing to use nuclear weapons.

Trump's profession is based off the loan that he received from his already rich father. There are thousands of people who have built more successful and impressive business empires than Trump has in America, not impressive.

 

Well your argument in other threads just like this guy are she stands for nothing. I give evidence of what she stands for and has supported in the past that's actually been good policies and the best you can come up with is I'm being a homer. She clearly stands for some things otherwise she'd never have gotten anything passed.

I mean since the 90s both Clintons have curtailed significant efforts towards a national health care policy. That's standing for something. As First Lady she helped passed CHIP, which again no one can argue is a failure. Again I'm giving you examples where she helped pass good legislation.