A nice article from a real news source.

[flockofseagulls104]

To paraphrase Bernie Sanders, real Americans are sick and tired of hearing about her damn e-mails.

But I live in Ohio and I already early-voted for Hillary two weeks ago, so it's not like this non-story has any effect on me.

Then again, there was nothing in Hillary's e-mails anyway that would make me sell out my soul and support the flaming paper bag of dog crap left on my front porch Donald Drumpf.

That's what scares me. You wouldn't care if Hillary turns out to be the Manchurian Candidate.

Ironic remark, given that Trump pretty much is. --Bob

Trump is not a Manchurian Candidate. He is controlled by no one. If he was, he would have avoided most, if not all, the controversy he has gotten himself into. He is an ego maniac, but then again, so is Hillary, so no matter who we get, we get that. He is not a politician, so he doesn't speak in the way the media wants him to, but he speaks in a way the average person understands. Example: When he said he would not commit to conceding if he loses, the press and Hillary (pretty much the same) made it into a Constitutional Crisis. But the average person knew he meant he would legally challenge, like Gore did, if he thought there were specific issue with the vote.
I do not like him, but I do not like him less than I do not like Hillary. If we get her as President it will be 4 years of non stop scandals, back biting and controversy. If we get him, we don't know what will happen. But what's for sure is that the loud, shrill far left minority will go into overdrive.

So it's a dillemma. Which poison do you want?

[Bob Juch]

To paraphrase Bernie Sanders, real Americans are sick and tired of hearing about her damn e-mails.

But I live in Ohio and I already early-voted for Hillary two weeks ago, so it's not like this non-story has any effect on me.

Then again, there was nothing in Hillary's e-mails anyway that would make me sell out my soul and support the flaming paper bag of dog crap left on my front porch Donald Drumpf.

That's what scares me. You wouldn't care if Hillary turns out to be the Manchurian Candidate.

Ironic remark, given that Trump pretty much is. --Bob

No, he's the Siberian candidate.

[Bob Juch]

Ironic remark, given that Trump pretty much is. --Bob

Coming from someone who supports the administration that gave $400 million in cash to world's largest sponsor of terrorism, a country that consistently calls for our destruction, and an administration, and State Department run by your candidate, that gave control of a large portion of our uranium assets over to the Soviets.

Yeah, Trump is the biggest risk.

And before you go all "..world court decided.." on me. 1) Screw the world court 2) We didn't have to give it in cash.

We didn't "give" Iran any money; it was already theirs.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/investig ... ment-iran/

The Clintons receive no benefit from their foundation so why would anything given to it influence Hillary's policies?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... n-got-pai/

[BackInTex]

We didn't "give" Iran any money; it was already theirs.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/investig ... ment-iran/

The Clintons receive no benefit from their foundation so why would anything given to it influence Hillary's policies?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... n-got-pai/

[flockofseagulls104]

Ironic remark, given that Trump pretty much is. --Bob

Coming from someone who supports the administration that gave $400 million in cash to world's largest sponsor of terrorism, a country that consistently calls for our destruction, and an administration, and State Department run by your candidate, that gave control of a large portion of our uranium assets over to the Soviets.

Yeah, Trump is the biggest risk.

And before you go all "..world court decided.." on me. 1) Screw the world court 2) We didn't have to give it in cash.

We didn't "give" Iran any money; it was already theirs.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/investig ... ment-iran/

The Clintons receive no benefit from their foundation so why would anything given to it influence Hillary's policies?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... n-got-pai/

You post this, and expect anyone to think it means anything? BJ, really, I get frustrated with you because you seem to be soooo indoctrinated, but you do have a brain. Try and use it for yourself. You may not agree with me, but c'mon....

[silverscreenselect]

really, I get frustrated with you because you seem to be soooo indoctrinated, but you do have a brain. Try and use it for yourself. You may not agree with me, but c'mon....

Flock, look in the mirror and repeat these words to yourself. It's advice you should take.

[flockofseagulls104]

really, I get frustrated with you because you seem to be soooo indoctrinated, but you do have a brain. Try and use it for yourself. You may not agree with me, but c'mon....

Flock, look in the mirror and repeat these words to yourself. It's advice you should take.

Expected that from you. Where did I get it from this time? Hannity or Rush?

Do you have any doubts about voting for Hillary? Leave Trump out of it, and be honest if you can.

[silverscreenselect]

Do you have any doubts about voting for Hillary? Leave Trump out of it, and be honest if you can.

I have no doubts about voting for Hillary, regardless of whatever Republican she is facing. For 25 years or more, people have come gunning for the Clintons in connection with every "scandal" under the sun. Many of them are dyed-in-the-wool Republicans, but not a single one of them has ever gotten enough for an indictment or an arrest. So, either they are all the most incompetent group of hunters since Elmer Fudd, or there's just nothing there.

Hillary has her faults. She's not immediately likable like her husband or Obama or Reagan. She has a "circle the wagons" tendency when things get tough, although I think that's in large part due to years of experience. She also tries to take a more pragmatic approach to politics than idealists on either the left or the right. At one time, that was considered a virtue. Now, it's hard to find anyone on the Republican side of the aisle willing to compromise on anything. But what's interesting about Hillary is that her approval ratings are highest when she's actually in office rather than when she's a candidate. When she actually works on getting things done, either in the Senate or as Secretary of State, she gets results and builds bridges.

So, yes, I would have supported her wholeheartedly against any of the crop of Republicans running against her.

[flockofseagulls104]

Do you have any doubts about voting for Hillary? Leave Trump out of it, and be honest if you can.

I have no doubts about voting for Hillary, regardless of whatever Republican she is facing. For 25 years or more, people have come gunning for the Clintons in connection with every "scandal" under the sun. Many of them are dyed-in-the-wool Republicans, but not a single one of them has ever gotten enough for an indictment or an arrest. So, either they are all the most incompetent group of hunters since Elmer Fudd, or there's just nothing there.

Hillary has her faults. She's not immediately likable like her husband or Obama or Reagan. She has a "circle the wagons" tendency when things get tough, although I think that's in large part due to years of experience. She also tries to take a more pragmatic approach to politics than idealists on either the left or the right. At one time, that was considered a virtue. Now, it's hard to find anyone on the Republican side of the aisle willing to compromise on anything. But what's interesting about Hillary is that her approval ratings are highest when she's actually in office rather than when she's a candidate. When she actually works on getting things done, either in the Senate or as Secretary of State, she gets results and builds bridges.

So, yes, I would have supported her wholeheartedly against any of the crop of Republicans running against her.

So, it's all the vast right wing conspiracy to you. Everyone in the world is wrong except her. She is as pure as a field of fresh snow, and everyone is against her because she's a girl. There's some guy in some bunker out there dreaming up all this stuff to smear her with. Must be pretty tough on her.

She (and her husband) remind my of Harry the Horse. I'm sure with your background you get the allusion.

Correction: It wasn't Harry the Horse, it was Big Jule.

[Estonut]

So, either they are all the most incompetent group of hunters since Elmer Fudd, or there's just nothing there.

It is quite telling that these are the ONLY options you see as possible.

[silverscreenselect]

So, either they are all the most incompetent group of hunters since Elmer Fudd, or there's just nothing there.

It is quite telling that these are the ONLY options you see as possible.

True, I overlooked the possibility that the Clintons are the modern day versions of Professor Moriarty without a Sherlock Holmes to keep them in check. It's tough enough to keep a lid on one scandal these days, but the Clintons have gotten by with dozens, if you believe their detractors, in an era in which the Republicans control most of the State governments and were in charge of the Justice Department for eight years under Bush.

[flockofseagulls104]

So, either they are all the most incompetent group of hunters since Elmer Fudd, or there's just nothing there.

It is quite telling that these are the ONLY options you see as possible.

True, I overlooked the possibility that the Clintons are the modern day versions of Professor Moriarty without a Sherlock Holmes to keep them in check. It's tough enough to keep a lid on one scandal these days, but the Clintons have gotten by with dozens, if you believe their detractors, in an era in which the Republicans control most of the State governments and were in charge of the Justice Department for eight years under Bush.

Damn it, you called us on it again!

The second most important committee of the VRWC is The Make Things Up to Pin On The Clintons Committee. The members work all day and all night to make up and set up various scenarios to throw at the Clintons. It's very difficult to think up things to pin on such blameless and super ethical people, but they do a good job. Their latest effort was writing thousands of damning fake emails and giving them to wikileaks. What an effort that was. But you saw right through it, SSS.
The best one was making it seem like Hillary lied and was deliberately evasive about her emails, when she was earnestly cooperating and did absolutely nothing wrong.
I hear they have some doozies in the works if she ever gets to be President.

The most important committee, of course, is The Oppress Everyone who isn't White Committee.

[flockofseagulls104]

... but the Clintons have gotten by with dozens, .

Exactly. Their record is clean. "33 arrests, no convictions....."

[silverscreenselect]

It's very difficult to think up things to pin on such blameless and super ethical people, but they do a good job.

It is difficult to "pin things" on the Clintons. They haven't managed to do that in 25 years. It's not difficult to accuse them of things; that happens on a daily basis.

And do you honestly think that if someone ever manages to hack the Republicans' e-mails that they wouldn't find lots of dirty laundry as well. While I was out of work, I did some document review projects for law firms. We looked through internal company documents and e-mails from mid-to-high level officials. All I can say is that I found dozens of e-mails that contained information that the authors would never want made public, for a variety of reasons.

[flockofseagulls104]

It's very difficult to think up things to pin on such blameless and super ethical people, but they do a good job.

It is difficult to "pin things" on the Clintons. They haven't managed to do that in 25 years. It's not difficult to accuse them of things; that happens on a daily basis.

And do you honestly think that if someone ever manages to hack the Republicans' e-mails that they wouldn't find lots of dirty laundry as well. While I was out of work, I did some document review projects for law firms. We looked through internal company documents and e-mails from mid-to-high level officials. All I can say is that I found dozens of e-mails that contained information that the authors would never want made public, for a variety of reasons.

Great argument. i guess that excuses everything.

I believe a few things have been 'pinned' on them. One involved a stained blue dress and a bald faced lie directly to the American People. But despite being impeached and disbarred, he is a hero to your party. And you want to let him back in the White House. Another arrest and no conviction.

I don't even know why I'm arguing with you. Our "get out the vote" mentality has provided us with these two choices. So many people casting a vote with no earthly idea about any issues. And candidates that pander to the ignorant. The democrat party leadership made sure that Hillary was nominated, and the republican party let this clown get nominated. I can't argue why you should vote for Trump.

No person with any integrity would put themselves through and/or do what they have to do to win the nomination of either party. This is what we get. But if you're honest with yourself, you're not voting for her, you're voting against Trump.

[SportsFan68]

Flock wrote:

No person with any integrity would put themselves through and/or do what they have to do to win the nomination of either party. This is what we get. But if you're honest with yourself, you're not voting for her, you're voting against Trump.

Flock, I dunno if that "not voting for her" remark was directed solely at SSS, but I'll reply anyway because I did vote FOR Hillary, just as I said I would two years ago when I declared myself to be "ready for Hillary."

As for voting against that misogynistic cheater of small business owners, that was a bonus I'd never anticipated.

I'm looking forward to a Hillary administration and taking back the Senate from a do-nothing bunch whose platform's most visible plank seems to be based on obstructing anything a Democrat proposes.

[BackInTex]

But if you're honest with yourself, you're not voting for her, you're voting against Trump.

No, I'm pretty sure SSS and Bob#s are voting FOR Clinton. Neither has ever acknowledge she is anything but qualified and all the negatives are made up.

[BackInTex]

I'm looking forward to a Hillary administration and taking back the Senate from a do-nothing bunch whose platform's most visible plank seems to be based on obstructing anything a Democrat proposes.

I hope you're patient. You'll be waiting a minimum of 4 years, and even then maybe 10-20.

[flockofseagulls104]

Flock wrote:

No person with any integrity would put themselves through and/or do what they have to do to win the nomination of either party. This is what we get. But if you're honest with yourself, you're not voting for her, you're voting against Trump.

Flock, I dunno if that "not voting for her" remark was directed solely at SSS, but I'll reply anyway because I did vote FOR Hillary, just as I said I would two years ago when I declared myself to be "ready for Hillary."

As for voting against that misogynistic cheater of small business owners, that was a bonus I'd never anticipated.

I'm looking forward to a Hillary administration and taking back the Senate from a do-nothing bunch whose platform's most visible plank seems to be based on obstructing anything a Democrat proposes.

Just a couple of questions:

So are you just not informed of all the corruption that has been exposed by wikileaks in the democrat party and media in general, and on the Clintons in particular, or do you just not care?

Are you comfortable in the fact that if she is elected, this evidence will not go away, and her administration will be plagued with it from day one?

Tell me why Trump is a misogynist and Bill Clinton is not. Several women have alleged various degrees of sexual assault against both of them. Both deny the allegations, but there is concrete evidence that Clinton lied about it. Were you OK with Clinton as the President and why would having Trump as President be different in this respect?

[flockofseagulls104]

But if you're honest with yourself, you're not voting for her, you're voting against Trump.

No, I'm pretty sure SSS and Bob#s are voting FOR Clinton. Neither has ever acknowledge she is anything but qualified and all the negatives are made up.

I wonder how they explain away the wikileaks emails...

[Bob78164]

Tell me why Trump is a misogynist and Bill Clinton is not. Several women have alleged various degrees of sexual assault against both of them. Both deny the allegations, but there is concrete evidence that Clinton lied about it.

There is no evidence that Bill Clinton lied when he denied sexual assault allegations. Inappropriate consensual relationships may be icky and they may give rise to civil liability, but they are not sexual assault. And unless the 23rd Amendment was repealed while I wasn't looking, it doesn't really matter because Bill Clinton is ineligible to become President, and he's not running anyway.

Trump, on the other hand, demonstrably lies about, well, pretty much everything. He is on camera denying having said things that he said on camera. He is also on tape admitting (corroborated by, at last count, a dozen women) making unwelcome physical contact with women of a sexual nature, which is pretty much the textbook definition of sexual assault. This isn't close. --Bob

[SportsFan68]

Flock wrote:

No person with any integrity would put themselves through and/or do what they have to do to win the nomination of either party. This is what we get. But if you're honest with yourself, you're not voting for her, you're voting against Trump.

Flock, I dunno if that "not voting for her" remark was directed solely at SSS, but I'll reply anyway because I did vote FOR Hillary, just as I said I would two years ago when I declared myself to be "ready for Hillary."

As for voting against that misogynistic cheater of small business owners, that was a bonus I'd never anticipated.

I'm looking forward to a Hillary administration and taking back the Senate from a do-nothing bunch whose platform's most visible plank seems to be based on obstructing anything a Democrat proposes.

Just a couple of questions:

So are you just not informed of all the corruption that has been exposed by wikileaks in the democrat party and media in general, and on the Clintons in particular, or do you just not care?

Are you comfortable in the fact that if she is elected, this evidence will not go away, and her administration will be plagued with it from day one?

Tell me why Trump is a misogynist and Bill Clinton is not. Several women have alleged various degrees of sexual assault against both of them. Both deny the allegations, but there is concrete evidence that Clinton lied about it. Were you OK with Clinton as the President and why would having Trump as President be different in this respect?

I am informed about as much of it as time allows.

The "evidence" will go away because it will no longer make a difference. The only reason these incomplete or out of context blurbs keep coming up now is because it serves a Republican need to distract and misinform. From the third debate: "Well, if you went on to read the rest of the sentence, I was talking about energy."

Bill Clinton has nothing to do with my assertion that I get to vote against that misogynistic cheater of small business owners, a bonus I'd never anticipated.

[Estonut]

Tell me why Trump is a misogynist and Bill Clinton is not. Several women have alleged various degrees of sexual assault against both of them. Both deny the allegations, but there is concrete evidence that Clinton lied about it.

There is no evidence that Bill Clinton lied when he denied sexual assault allegations. Inappropriate consensual relationships may be icky and they may give rise to civil liability, but they are not sexual assault. And unless the 23rd Amendment was repealed while I wasn't looking, it doesn't really matter because Bill Clinton is ineligible to become President, and he's not running anyway.

Trump, on the other hand, demonstrably lies about, well, pretty much everything. He is on camera denying having said things that he said on camera. He is also on tape admitting (corroborated by, at last count, a dozen women) making unwelcome physical contact with women of a sexual nature, which is pretty much the textbook definition of sexual assault. This isn't close. --Bob

Why is it that "There is no evidence that Bill Clinton lied when he denied sexual assault allegations," yet "(Trump) is also on tape admitting (corroborated by, at last count, a dozen women) making unwelcome physical contact with women of a sexual nature?" So dozens of accusers of Clinton are "no evidence," while dozens of accusers of Trump are "corroboration?" Further, you said, "Trump, on the other hand, demonstrably lies about, well, pretty much everything." Why are you so sure that his boasting to BB was all true, when he does nothing but bluster, boast and lie?

[Bob78164]

Why are you so sure that his boasting to BB was all true, when he does nothing but bluster, boast and lie?

Because all of his lies are self-serving. And because it's utterly consistent with pretty much everything else about his personality. --Bob

[Estonut]

Why are you so sure that his boasting to BB was all true, when he does nothing but bluster, boast and lie?

Because all of his lies are self-serving. And because it's utterly consistent with pretty much everything else about his personality.

Was his boasting to a much younger and more virile Billy Bush not self-serving, too?