Poor trump - Page 2

"Maybe" can cover a lot of ground. Maybe Hilary still has a record that shows poor leadership, dishonesty and fatal consequences.

Maybe, if she does win, it will only be for one term.

That could be true but the difference between me and those who believe she is guilty of these things is that I don't need to believe she is guilty, just as I don't need to believe she is innocent.

The only reason that they have continued to investigate her and pour money into committees is for the benefit of those who need to believe she is guilty. They are simply feeding their confirmation bias. It's like with Obama and birthers. It doesn't matter how much evidence he provides, there will always be those who are convinced he was not born in the USA. Every time someone with perceived credibility (which these days is anyone with a blog) claims he isn't a citizen it tells these people that they aren't alone in their convictions.

When talking about politicians and their parties, what you are calling confirmation bias can also be seen as strength of conviction to their ideals. In that case, the fact that Obama and the Democrats give Hilary and themselves incredible leeway as to what "taking responsibility" actually looks like, does not surprise me in the least.

Political parties don't have ideals, they have agendas. They only care about power.

Political parties do have ideals. It's the respective politicians that have agendas and power is usually the greatest perk. The legacy and immortality offered by history is also particular and precious to Hilary, if she grabs and possesses this particular brass ring. It will drown out any minor glimmers of governing prowess or Oval Office antics, ever written about prez Bill. Their bargain with the devil was sealed and the goal has always remained the same. Whatever it takes, is what Hilary considers, as will be hers, so long as getting her the presidency, gets done.

Trump being motivated by a power quest, maybe, but he already had that. Legacy, could be most important, for him, too.

This could be why the typical patterns and predictions just aren't working in this prez race.

Parties technically can't have ideals as only humans can have ideals. So when you are talking about a political party having or not having ideals it is the members who we really are talking about. In other words, the ideals of a party are, or should be, a reflection of its members ideals. The "party" (meaning the few people with the real power in the party) only cares about winning and comes up with an agenda it believes will do so. The GOP isn't pro-life because it cares one way or another about fetuses. The history of how the GOP became pro-life shows that it was a calculated position (in 1976) meant to attract socially conservative voters and Catholics. At that time the majority of republicans were pro-choice. The "party" didn't care about its members' ideals, only winning.

Let's keep to the spirit of the discussion then, and not be bogged down with technicalities. In the sense of a corporation that takes on the rights of personification, so too, is the sense of a political party's  that becomes imbued with ideals, authored by persons who think collectively.

I am sure you understood the main point of motive I wanted to make between Hillary and Donald. Your opinion was centered on power; mine on legacy.

bee, you are all for gun control how does that mesh with your party?

It doesn't. If you want to put me in a box, I am probably best described as independent with conservative leanings. You must know by now, what a terrible follower I can be.