Seems he underestimated human nature. Reminds me of the story about the university professor who lowered grades of high achievers to raise grades of low achievers. The result was significantly reduced effort by all students.

"Hacked Emails Reveal War Mongering NATO General Plotting Against Obama to Start Proxy War Against Russian in the Ukraine"

It is only too obvious the writer does not know (or chooses to ignore) how senior military leaders work. The term "war mongering" is misleading in a significant way. The general was recommending a combined show of force, not a deceleration of war. (BTW this "show of force" has been a military strategy since the end of WWII and has proved effective in reducing aggressive action(s) by the "Soviet Sino Forces" and now mother Russia.) "Plotting against Obama" is truly far out of context of the general seeking counsel and advise from a previous senior military leader as well as the SoS. That's what senior military leaders do. They ask other leaders and subordinates for guidance and some times support for their idea(s). They seek support for their recommendations to their seniors in order to do their job. To me there is an underlying energy in this military to president situation that had the general seeking maybe more outside support than ever in his career. This, I believe, is because of the negative actions Obama has taken against other military leaders when they offered their recommendations and Obama didn't like them. Seems being a good leader offering your best recommendations got many to be fired and humiliated by the CIC.

That's why the headline is misleading and unsubstantiated.

Can the headline be any more misleading and unsubstantiated?

The point I was attempting to make was not to measure any candidate but only to offer a reasonable "scorecard" in evaluating each candidate. Now that we have discarded "lying" as a measure of character, the other traits listed could be used in measuring each candidate. When given limited choices some means must be available to discern between the choices presented. The "scorecard" should be used when assessing each candidate and should be as objective as possible for those v**ers who are independent or willing to v**e outside of party lines. Maybe a numerical value can be assigned to each measurement (5 being "fantastic" and 0 being "really sucks") then add up all the numbers and the one with the highest score gets the v**e! In the case of a tie, grab a fresh bottle of scotch and head outside to the deck/patio/veranda/terrace and finish the bottle then make the decision after you sober up. You'll still have the headache.

Is there a level of lying that is acceptable for politicians? They all do it. All the time. Why is it such a big deal now? Does anyone think the current and past "elected elite" don't/didn't lie? Much ado about nothing it seems.

This is exactly why and how we never seem to achieve progress. Ideas are immediately discounted because they are presented by the "other side." Meaningful dialog to reach workable and honest efforts to improve is lost which results in dithering and finger pointing. Your immediate response alluding to a fiscal issue assumes that you are content with the current situation and support the continued and increasing funding for programs that have failed.

How did you leap to this conclusion?

We are in agreement. We tend to squander our youth for political advantage. Raising people up is a goal of advanced societies. Unfortunately how we attempt to accomplish this is full of "political trickery."

It really is "totally simplistic." It is up to the leaner to learn. But they cannot do it in a vacuum. It takes infrastructure, dedicated educators, caring parents and society to set goals and opportunities. But in the end the individual is responsible to take advantage of all support to learn. How do you explain total failure for some individuals that have all the support yet fail when some that have little support succeed? It is an individual responsibility.

Seems to me the democrats r****d their nomination and were a bit shocked with the Bernie deal. Then there are the republicans who had a field of 17 candidates. Some very well qualified. And then along comes Trump with his bombastic personality that appealed to the primary v**ers. Looks like time are a changing here in the good 'ol USA!

Education, or effective education, is the responsibility of the the student. Teachers, administrators, counselors, parents, and society are all in a support role that facilitate learning. Learning is an individual effort and responsibility. We may have all been created equal but all of us have different capabilities and abilities to learn. Some are far ahead of their peers whereas some are woefully behind. I think it's time to do away with the grade levels and start to providing learning opportunities based on individual sk**ls and motivation. With the positive effects modern technology can provide it is time to overhaul our education system and integrate technologies at the highest levels. Recommending college is only the answer to those that refuse to think creatively and depend on their personal education experiences from so many years ago. College, or more appropriately, advanced education, is for those that really desire it and have demonstrated their capability and discipline to learn. We need to prepare our children to learn and to discover they have the innate interest and abilities to achieve positive results for themselves in their lives. Too many are pushed into the mold designed by parents and society. The conversation on conscription is not a diversion, but an acceptable alternative to assisting youth in discovering who they are and accepting the fact they need to be responsible for themselves. This is a basic sk**l required for success in life. And when on eis successfull in life, they attain high levels of happiness.

Think about the CCW program in the Roosevelt administration. Same strategy but different tactic.

Attempting to apply some intelligence to the decision, I find that I keep coming back to Trump as the better choice. I share your feelings that he is the "lesser of two evils". HRC has demonstrated she has little if any effective leadership sk**ls to actually accomplish anything of value. Her long "public career" is a clear indication that wh**ever she touches turns to s**t pretty quickly usually wrapped in underhanded tactics. Whereas Trump has demonstrated the ability of recruiting and directing pretty smart folks to attain very measurable results in an extremely difficult and challenging enterprise. He also has demonstrated his ability to coordinate many diverse and sometimes bitterly opposed entities to produce real results. Can he use these sk**ls as president? I think so. It's too bad he is such an ass.

I agree they all suck, especially in this year's cycle. V**ers will elect the one that has the best lie that they'll get 'em more money, an easier life, a better car, a bigger house, etc. Most v**ers won't even consider the sk**l sets of those running.

OK, let's toss out "lying" as a character trait for politicians. What else needs to be considered? I suggest:

ethics, commitment, effective leadership sk**ls, organizational sk**ls, management sk**ls, communication sk**ls, decision making sk**ls, negotiation sk**ls, work ethics, and multitasking sk**ls.