Election 2016 (Page 11)

He cares about American people and our soldiers.  He doesn't want to engage in interventionist wars to appease the defense industry lobby.  Where do you think those trillions of dollars spent have gone?

In comparison Hillary will most definitely continue with the interventionist pro-war industry policies of the Bush's/Obama.  Nobody in the US will ever use Nuclear weapons so it's the stupidest argument against Trump the Dems and media have made to date.  Seriously, the only thing worse is that you buy into it.

Obama couldn't even pass a Top Secret background check, but the Republicans in all their vitriol towards him never stooped to this level of stupidity.

Trump's speech last night was awesome.  He looked and sounded very presidential....not his normal shoot from the hip style.  Maybe someone finally jerked a knot in his aas.  If he can stay on script like he was last night, he will win.

He has been systematically building a very strong case for his presidency with policy speeches.
Economy, Foreign Policy, Immigration, Law and Order.

In contrast Hillary just continues to tell us how much of a meanie Trump is and how bad the rich are, oh and he's too dangerous to have "the nuclear codes".  Her strategy has to change from personal to substance or Trump will continue to chip away at her support until it's all over.  This exact same scenario played out over and over again in the primaries.  "Trump's a meanie" isn't a winning strategy.

The fact that Republicans made this ridiculous claim in the first place is proof of how low they'll stoop.

Or, you know, when Trump says Obama founded ISIS. That's a pretty low level of stupidity.

This is factually true, so I don't know what you're talking about it being a low level of stupid.  No birther issues required, Obama was born a triple citizen (US, Kenyan, and UK) due to his father being a Kenyan Citizen (which was a British colony at the time) and had traveled to many foreign countries, including Pakistan which was a banned country) throughout his youth.
Ultimately the American people are the deciders of backgrounds in our political office, so he is absolutely entitled to the security clearance he now holds and it's a non issue.  I was simply referring to him joining the military or FBI as an example he would at the least have a very difficult time getting a Top Security clearance.
A person could even have multiple felonies and a spying conviction on their record and still be eligible for public office.  If the people elect him/her for whatever reason they're then entitled to all the clearances that job requires.

We had several guys on my ship in the Navy who were dual citizens and they couldn't even get a Secret clearance and were forced to do more menial jobs as a result.

I get a kick out of the spin attempts, but this is the difference between a winner and a loser.  A politician will hold onto people who aren't doing the job because they're worried about what it will look like politically.  A leader will replace people who aren't getting the job done regardless of the fallout.

It's not factually true. He was born in this country, never pledged allegiance to Kenya, and never renounced his US citizenship. He lost his Kenyan citizenship when he became an adult (and had lost his UK citizenship long before that). The State Department has their eligibility for access to classified information guidelines available online (here). Guideline C states a dual citizenship may be a disqualifying factor. It also says a mitigating factor is if the dual citizenship is based solely on the parents' citizenship. So at best it would mean he would have been subject to additional scrutiny before being approved/rejected for classified information, which is a far cry from Republicans saying he could not pass the background check. But it doesn't matter anyway because by the time he was of military age, he was no longer had dual citizenship. 

So you're saying Trump's campaign staff wasn't getting the job done? 

Drumpf?  Really?  What are you 7?  :-)

I agree it shows things have been going poorly.  Everyone knows that!  Trump can read the polls and knows it too.  And he did what any good executive would do, make adjustments.....change things to try to change the trajectory.  Executives know the secret of success is to fail fast!  If what you are doing is not working, accept the failure and do something different! 

I never understood how Obama and GWB would keep people on staff who screwed up.  Lois Lerner should have been fired immediately.  Whomever was in charge of the Obamacare roll out should have been fired - the leaders and their staffs too.  Bush should have fired a bunch of people when it was learned they had bad intel about the WMD in Iraq.  Heads should have rolled!  As far as I know, not a single person was fired.

This is exactly why I'd like to see a business executive running thing rather than a politician. You don't perform in the corporate world and you get fired.

Uh....one thing is for sure....it's NOWHERE NEAR late in the game.  Reagan was behind in every poll with 2 weeks to go in the campaign.......and he substantially "re-made" his image in that last 2 weeks to win.

The other thing to consider is that your candidate isn't too bright either. LMAOOOOO  No telling what kind of bonehead move she'll come up with or will get drug out from her closet.

You referring to HiLIARry?

You're making my point for me by pointing out the absurdity of the argument against Obama and more importantly the irrelevance of it.  He didn't ever have to go through a background check or a security clearance check because he won the election and was simply granted the clearance.
The same holds true for Trump.  It's utterly absurd to suggest that he can't have the Nuclear codes because he doesn't bow down to the alter of political correctness.  It's like saying Obama can't have the nuclear codes because he want to Jeramiah Wrights church.  Both arguments are equally stupid.  

I once hired an engineering college graduate into a position that required a secret clearance. HR made the offer to him subject to him getting an interim clearance. This is very quick background check they do on people they to get people access to programs prior to the full background check. So this kid accepts the offer and is all excited but the agents who do the check found out he had once broken into the cafeteria in college and stole some donuts. His interim clearance was denied and HR had to rescind the offer. I felt really bad for the kid. I talked to him about it and he said it was a stupid college prank.

 If she weren't democrat royalty, Hillary's clearance would have been yanked and she never would get another one.

We didn't know about it when we made the job offer.  The job offer was made contingent on him being able to get an interim clearance.  If I was hiring him for a position that didn't require a clearance no one would have ever known about the incident.

I had to tell a polygraph operator during my background check that I had smoked weed in High School and he went nuts because I couldn't give an honest answer as to how many times.  I finally told the guy, "at the time, I didn't know this would come up so I didn't keep accurate records".....then he got really pizzed off and said, "fine, then I'm going to put 100".....to which I replied, "well, I think it was a hell of a lot more then that but I'm good with that if you are".....more anger from an already really angry guy. LOL  We finally settled on the fact that I hadn't smoked any in 8 years.......I passed.

You said Republicans have never stooped to that level in the same sentence that you claimed Obama couldn't pass a background check. But that was just a conservative lie thrown out there to scare voters, no different than all the times he's been called a Muslim and a Kenyan. The GOP has stooped to very, very low levels of stupidity.

All of that has nothing to do with questioning whether Trump has the temperament to be in charge of launching nuclear weapons.  I tend to agree with you that he (or any other president) would never order a nuclear attack unless it was an absolute last resort. Then again, how will he react when some world leader makes fun of his tiny, little hands? I mean, we are talking about a guy who promised that as president he'll order our soldiers to commit war crimes (by intentionally killing innocent women and children). And when asked what he would do when the troops refused his orders, he replied "They won't refuse. They're not going to refuse me. Believe me. If I say do it, they're going to do it." So what's the line that he won't cross?  ¯\_(?)_/¯

I don't really get your argument here.  He was a U.S. Senator.  I don't know what clearance they get but Obama certainly wasn't the first senator who later became president.

Thats pretty funny. 

When I was interviewed for a clearance they asked about pot.  I said I had smoke a few times in college but never after college.  They know people smoke pot in HS and college.....they are more concerned if you try to hide something.  My problem is I have fractured a few laws when I was in my teens and 20s but finally grew up, quit drinking and smoking......started running marathons and tris.  But I have try to remember all my youthful indiscretions in periodic reinvestigatoons....and I'm like, I have no idea the date of my first DUI.....it was 30+ years ago....1981 maybe....maybe it was 1982. 

My guess is as a senator he had a secret level clearance with a standard background investigation.  As POTUS he would need a top secret clearance with a SSBI and then numerous special access caveats.  The difference in levels means for the secret level they might talk to your neighbors.....for a top secret they might hunt down your high school biology teacher and your landlord in college and visit every police department in every town you ever lived in.  

My guess is he was given a pass on the top secret.  As POTUS he can grant himself a waiver if they did find something in his past. :-).