rickyp wrote:fateTranslation: "I'll cut and paste some links, but leave the work to you."
If reading a comprehensive analysis, that offers a complete understanding of the failings of both ....
is work. Then its work that should be done.
Right, but if YOU want to make a point, YOU should make it. YOU need to highlight whatever makes YOUR point, not demand someone else sort through it and try to understand what YOU want to say.
Hint: two links are not an argument.
Hillary Clinton is probably the best prepared person to be President in decades. her experience is vast, and her understanding of the legilsative and executive beanches is first hand. She is respected by her peers in the Senate, and by the International Community.
Better than GHWB? I doubt it.
Oh, and she is respected internationally? She's a freaking laughingstock, only behind Obama.
She has limitations. First among them apparently an older persons understanding of technology which lead to her email problems.
Right. Or, she's fundamentally dishonest.
She didn't understand what "C" meant on her emails? That is either a lie or she's a moron. Take your pick.
But then she's hardly alone in coming to grips with the issue of cyber security.
She is however, up to the task of being President.
That's your opinion. Go ahead and vote for her.
Oh. Right. You don't get to vote.
But to even countenance that she is as unqualified and reprehensible as Donald Trump suggests you have been exposed to little media other than that which carry on laregly unsubstantiated conspiracies about her... including her health.
Who said anything about Trump? It's not either/or. She stands unqualified on her own demerits.
I offered you a quick read that I thought would be useful. If you don't care to invest the time in exploring an informed point of view from credible journalists, I'll understand.
If they want to explain why someone so dishonest and vile should be President, I'm not interested.