I don't trust Hilliary Clinton

[Guest]

From AOL just now;

Clinton got now-classified Benghazi info on private email - AOL.com (http://www.aol.com/article/2015/05/22/clinton-got-now-classified-benghazi-info-on-private-email/21186399/)

Plus I think she has a terrible temper and I think she is vindictive as only a woman can be. I say this because I am a woman.

[Guest]

From AOL just now;

Clinton got now-classified Benghazi info on private email - AOL.com (http://www.aol.com/article/2015/05/22/clinton-got-now-classified-benghazi-info-on-private-email/21186399/)

Plus I think she has a terrible temper and I think she is vindictive as only a woman can be. I say this because I am a woman.

If you really feel that way and she gets the nomination, you have the option to not vote for her. That is your constitutional right if you are registered to vote.

[Guest]

What i dont understand is why the h--- doesnt obama our wonderful administrator ( wont call him the president) do something about the mess we are in with this ISIS. Yes I think the USgovernment helped in creating this but now lets do something. Eliminate them. Yes Hillary is not to be trusted hopefully she withdraws from running for president.

[Guest]

Why not? You must not be blind indoctrinated liberal sheep. She class act just like her husband.:22yikes: prefect example of democrat! :22yikes:What's not to like?:p

[Guest]

As you recall Bill Clinton would not admit, even under oath that he has sexual relations with that woman, Ms Lewinsky, until he was boxed in. I offer this refresher because it illustrates how these two attorney trained couple have used their education and experiences to dodge their critics. Hillary was on the legal staff that went after Nixon and learned all the nuances of deflecting the truth. The allegations made against Hillary concerning Benghazi, her personal e-mail server and the Clinton Foundation all ring true.

Its obvious the clintons will maintain a low profile until the storm blows over. It is sad that many voters/press will confuse their loyalty, dislike of the other side or adoration for this couple and let them make fools of us all but the Democratic Party has a habit of saying over and over again about their favor pols "Yea s/he is a crook but s/he is our crook


Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

If you really feel that way and she gets the nomination, you have the option to not vote for her. That is your constitutional right if you are registered to vote.

Sad thing is, the vast majority of Americans do not trust her at all, however, despite that she will get the nomination and stand a very good chance of winning.

What does that say about the Democratic Party and the sheep who will be sent out to vote for her (see George Soros, etc.). She is EVERYTHING the democrats oppose, has tons of skeletons in her closet, has proven very worthy of not being trusted.

To me, it is quite the indictment of that party.

A flippant remark as was made about the option on the vote, I assume with full knowledge of the Soros setup, is just....well, flippant, unaware of the serious difficulties facing this country, and I can only hope that some will wake up and begin to see why the distrust.

Imagine.....most Americans do not TRUST her, but almost all democrats will vote for her. What a crown for that party.

[Guest]

From AOL just now;

Clinton got now-classified Benghazi info on private email - AOL.com (http://www.aol.com/article/2015/05/22/clinton-got-now-classified-benghazi-info-on-private-email/21186399/)

Plus I think she has a terrible temper and I think she is vindictive as only a woman can be. I say this because I am a woman.

First off, I don't trust her either. I really think the main reason she's running is .... the ego and sense of entitlement. It's not like she has a genuine vision, other than poll-tested talking points.

But, to the topic of her emails... She had what's called "Sensitive But Unclassified" (SBU) information on her private server. While it's not classified per se, it's just what the marking says "sensitive." In addition, SBU information in the aggregate is in fact considered classified.

Hillary broke a number of laws starting with the Federal Records Act by keeping official government correspondence on non-government systems. After all, she was SecState, the #3 position in the USG Executive Branch by custom. There is ZERO doubt that she broke the law and she knew it. But, by hiding behind a shyster interpretation, and operating off her notion that laws are for the little people, (not the Clintons) she did it anyway.

Ask yourself why would anyone go to the trouble? Answer, to make sure incriminating information could be reliably destroyed when needed. Which is what she did a few months ago. It's obvious what she wanted destroyed ... any/all links to the Clinton Foundation, and in effect selling influence while SecState. Her net worth has rocketed to $200 Million … that’s a veritable fortune. Does anyone think hers or Bill’s speeches are that good? It’s obviously selling access, in advance, to when she is (hopefully not) elected POTUS.

If we had a genuine watchdog media, this would be Watergate on steroids. I'm sure there are all kinds of leads and trails in the emails. They're still out there (ie the people that received them) but it will take work to sniff it out.

[Guest]

From AOL just now;

Clinton got now-classified Benghazi info on private email - AOL.com (http://www.aol.com/article/2015/05/22/clinton-got-now-classified-benghazi-info-on-private-email/21186399/)

Plus I think she has a terrible temper and I think she is vindictive as only a woman can be. I say this because I am a woman.

As another free thinking woman, not to be confused with those who feel they must shut off their brains and cast aside their moral code to vote for someone just because they are female, I am with you 100% on that assessment!

[Guest]

These Benghazi emails will do as much damage to Hillary Clinton in 2016 as they did to Barack Obama in 2012, none.

[Guest]

These Benghazi emails will do as much damage to Hillary Clinton in 2016 as they did to Barack Obama in 2012, none.

SHE was directly involved.....she was and is still directly responsible. She is the one who has a laundry list of other very visible issues that speak loudly to lack of trust warranted...........like Obama currently has as well.

[Guest]

These Benghazi emails will do as much damage to Hillary Clinton in 2016 as they did to Barack Obama in 2012, none.

You are absolutely correct in my opinion.

I think THAT fact is an indictment of the Democratic party frankly. To "coronate" someone who is openly not trusted by a large majority of the american people is just a bit out of line to me.

It is also an indictment of our media and frankly the voters who will rush out to vote for her for all the wrong reasons.

She is annointed and she knows it. She stands for nothing even close to the Democratic parties manifested goals and objective, BUT they will turn out and vote for her.

I thought of how they will get out the votes today as I was reading about the groups protesting that they did not get their pay for protesting in Ferguson.

Funny if it were not so sad !!!

Ferguson 'Protesters' Are Now Protesting That They Didn't Get Paid - Investors.com (http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/052015-753642-ferguson-protesters-complain-about-not-getting-paid.htm)

That has NOTHING to do with Ms Clinton, but does speak volumes to the character of the party !!

[Guest]

Since we are talking about the Ferguson protesters, I wanted to point out that the Indian long grain rough price right now is about $9.15 per cwt. The Chinese price is at $19.79 per cwt. and the North Arkansas bid is around $9.55 per cwt., as I write this. By the way, the price of rice in Brazil is about $12.65 per cwt. and $12.75 in Thailand. Other than India, the United States has the lowest priced long grain rough rice in the world right now.

[Guest]

Since we are talking about the Ferguson protesters, I wanted to point out that the Indian long grain rough price right now is about $9.15 per cwt. The Chinese price is at $19.79 per cwt. and the North Arkansas bid is around $9.55 per cwt., as I write this. By the way, the price of rice in Brazil is about $12.65 per cwt. and $12.75 in Thailand. Other than India, the United States has the lowest priced long grain rough rice in the world right now.
Thank you for the long grain rice pricing. I will start to follow this on the CBOTstarting Tuesday,and thanks for one of the better informative posts.

[Guest]

Thank you for the long grain rice pricing. I will start to follow this on the CBOTstarting Tuesday,and thanks for one of the better informative posts.


CORRECT. a post like that tells you quite a bit about the poster, doesn't it ?

If you know nothing about the subject being discussed, then play the fool and go for a laugh !! Met many of these over the years !

[Guest]

As another woman I agree she is just another Obama. I can't think of a single achievement she has accomplished as secretary of state? Also Benghazi was enough for me not to mention the email scandals our nations security is more important than gay or women's rights. Maybe she could help woman in the middle east since they have no rights at allowed

[Guest]

CORRECT. a post like that tells you quite a bit about the poster, doesn't it ?

If you know nothing about the subject being discussed, then play the fool and go for a laugh !! Met many of these over the years !
I think you missed the point Villager.the thread was about Hillary Clinton , and then it was directed to a Ferguson nonsensical path and the rice pricing post wast to just show show how hard it is for some to stay on topic. But like W said "fool me once, shame on you...... fool me - you can't get fooled again."


CORRECT. a post like that tells you quite a bit about the poster, doesn't it ?

If you know nothing about the subject being discussed, then play the fool and go for a laugh !! Met many of these over the years !

[Guest]

I think you missed the point Villager.the thread was about Hillary Clinton , and then it was directed to a Ferguson nonsensical path and the rice pricing post wast to just show show how hard it is for some to stay on topic. But like W said "fool me once, shame on you...... fool me - you can't get fooled again."

Than you for explaining it for some of the other posters.

[Guest]

Than you for explaining it for some of the other posters.

So, anytime someone gets off thread, which is pretty much always, we can reduce ourselves to self-serving ridicule of anyone else.

I see....classy !

[Guest]

So, anytime someone gets off thread, which is pretty much always, we can reduce ourselves to self-serving ridicule of anyone else.

I see....classy !

Since we are pretty much off subject, I would like to point out the the current cost of tea in China depends on several variables including the type of tea and worldwide demand for it. Other determining factors include whether or not it is considered fair trade tea, international tariffs and the state of the Chinese economy in regard to international relations.

[Guest]

Since we are pretty much off subject, I would like to point out the the current cost of tea in China depends on several variables including the type of tea and worldwide demand for it. Other determining factors include whether or not it is considered fair trade tea, international tariffs and the state of the Chinese economy in regard to international relations.

Brevity is the soul of wit ... not repetition, tedious explanation and twisted attempts at being clever.

[Guest]

From AOL just now;

Clinton got now-classified Benghazi info on private email - AOL.com (http://www.aol.com/article/2015/05/22/clinton-got-now-classified-benghazi-info-on-private-email/21186399/)

Plus I think she has a terrible temper and I think she is vindictive as only a woman can be. I say this because I am a woman.

Did you neglect to read the story or simply choose to ignore the salient point about the information on her private server? The material on her server was NOT CLASSIFIED at the time she was dealing with the issue. Like much of what our government does, the material was later changed just this week to being classified. It was an email she received and she did not send it on nor respond. So the implication that she deflected classified material to her private server is completely bogus. But having the full story is not as useful for right wing conspiracy theories.

[Guest]

Did you neglect to read the story or simply choose to ignore the salient point about the information on her private server? The material on her server was NOT CLASSIFIED at the time she was dealing with the issue. Like much of what our government does, the material was later changed just this week to being classified. It was an email she received and she did not send it on nor respond. So the implication that she deflected classified material to her private server is completely bogus. But having the full story is not as useful for right wing conspiracy theories.

Did you read the earlier post on SBU information?? Do you even know what that is? Do you realize the SBU, when aggregated, is typically considered classified? How much of the 30,000 emails might qualify?

Also, do you think it's a great idea for senior government leaders to put their official email and other written correspondence on private servers? Are you REALLY defending that????

[Guest]

I think THAT fact is an indictment of the Democratic party To "coronate" someone who is openly not trusted by a large majority of the american people is just a bit out of line to me.


Interesting claim that a large majority of the American people don't trust her. Do you have a poll to support your view?

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/03/16/clinton.poll.pdf
Hillary Clinton and the Republican 2016 hopefuls - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2015/04/02/National-Politics/Polling/release_393.xml)

A majority would be over 50%, a large majority would be at least 55/45. I'll await your posting of the source of your FACT. Otherwise perhaps your statement is a bit out of line to reality.

[Guest]

Did you read the earlier post on SBU information?? Do you even know what that is? Do you realize the SBU, when aggregated, is typically considered classified? How much of the 30,000 emails might qualify?

Also, do you think it's a great idea for senior government leaders to put their official email and other written correspondence on private servers? Are you REALLY defending that????


And I will bow to you expert knowledge of the handling of SBU materials, even though everything I find on the internet contradicts your assertion of magical reclassification due to aggregation
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88404.pdf
Maybe I am just a poor reader and you can find the evidence for me that supports your knowledge.
As to your question about Clinton's use of a private server, no it was not a great idea, but it also was not illegal.

[Guest]

Brevity is the soul of wit ... not repetition, tedious explanation and twisted attempts at being clever.

I believe it was concise.

It was not repetitive since one post concerned rice and the other tea.

Who was attempting to be clever?

But what does that have to do with trusting Clinton? The majority of posts on TOTV have little or no credibility.

[Guest]

Did you neglect to read the story or simply choose to ignore the salient point about the information on her private server? The material on her server was NOT CLASSIFIED at the time she was dealing with the issue. Like much of what our government does, the material was later changed just this week to being classified. It was an email she received and she did not send it on nor respond. So the implication that she deflected classified material to her private server is completely bogus. But having the full story is not as useful for right wing conspiracy theories.

But did she not say that she had only ONE email address and now we find TWO of them. ?

[Guest]

But did she not say that she had only ONE email address and now we find TWO of them. ?


Good news. When Hillary becomes president, all of her correspondence will be carefully archived. That includes emails, tweets, phone calls, etc. All are monitored and recorded as they are for all presidents.

[Guest]

Good news. When Hillary becomes president, all of her correspondence will be carefully archived. That includes emails, tweets, phone calls, etc. All are monitored and recorded as they are for all presidents.

This post sort of underscores something I just do not understand.

Despite being dishonest, not trusted folks like this poster are simply giddy over having her elected as President.

Now what does that say.....just for politics, they will demean goodness, and embrace sheer dishonesty simply to win an election for their party. And you wonder why this country is so screwed up.

Oh, I have no doubt that George Soros will get out the vote and the last few years of trying to make it easier, and assuredly less secure to vote, will serve her well.

BUT, is this the way it is supposed to be ? Very alarming to me that people are that shallow, but I suppose it is true.

[Guest]

I do object to the statement above somewhere that says none of the posts on TOTV are credible.
Who said so? What constitutes credible? A footnote with sources?
How are opinions counted/measured? Are they credible? (of course they are).

The second comment regarding folks voting for the party or the gender no matter the character, gender or qualifications of any given candidate.
Unfortunately we live in a time when party politics is the only measure.
Follow the party pied piper even to an ill end.
Party first no matter what.
No thinking required.

[Guest]

And I will bow to you expert knowledge of the handling of SBU materials, even though everything I find on the internet contradicts your assertion of magical reclassification due to aggregation
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88404.pdf
Maybe I am just a poor reader and you can find the evidence for me that supports your knowledge.

As to your question about Clinton's use of a private server, no it was not a great idea, but it also was not illegal.

The guidelines for determining which aspects of SBU, or what level of aggregation thereof, can result in the material becoming classified are themselves classified. That is why you can’t find it via Internet search. It stems from an Executive Order issued a number of years back, and is administered by the Director of National Intelligence.

The classical definitions of what is considered legally classified relates to potential “damage” to the US national security, but at varying levels. E.g. Confidential information, if disclosed, could do “damage” to the national security of the US whereas Top Secret, if disclosed, involves information that can produce “exceptionally grave” damage.

Given that the State Department (actually due to FBI pressure) just “classified” information initially sent out by SecState Clinton as "secret" vs “unclassified” neatly makes this point. There’s no doubt that some of what Hillary sent out was, and is in fact classified, even if she says it wasn’t. I say this for two reasons.

As the 3rd most senior official in the USG’s Executive Branch, pretty much everything she did for official business had that potential … i.e. she was THE focal point for US foreign policy. Don’t forget, she was given daily intelligence briefings (i.e. highly classified) so I personally think it’s thus a statistical certainly some of what she talked about in her personal emails later spilled over since she was using it to conduct all of her official government business.

The second reason is the sheer volume of emails, when aggregated and analyzed by a competent professional, would yield all types of information of interest, and certainly be capable of causing some level of “damage” to US national security thus classified. There’ also no doubt that the major intelligence services (Russian, Chinese, Israeli, French etc.) easily hacked her homegrown email systems and now have everything she sent out which likely submits her to subtle foreign pressure or even potential blackmail.

One example would be if she connected, in any way, official government decisions or policies with “gifts” or donations to the Clinton Foundation. My guess is she did that … repeatedly, and explains why she zapped the emails.

Thus, in my view, she knowingly failed (de facto or otherwise) to protect national security information, which is a felony. In addition, it’s patently obvious she broke the Federal Records Act …beyond any reasonable dispute, and that is another felony. If her last name was not "Clinton", the USG would already be in the process of bringing formal legal charges against her.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?_r=0

The real question is this … WHY would Hillary have gone to the trouble of setting up her own email server etc? I know you are too sophisticated to accept the explanation she offered to many (and unfortunately gullibly accepted by many) that she didn’t want to carry two phones.

There are only two reasons I can think of:

1. She has unbelievably poor judgment coupled with unbelievably incompetent IT technical advice, or

2. She wanted to be able to quickly eliminate the evidence/email trails if and when needed … which is what she did a few weeks ago.

Explanation #2 means she knowingly did something (or many things) that were wrong and thus would not want it on TV or the media ... especially since she wants to be our President.

You said you don’t think what she did was a “great idea.” Why then do you think she did it? What’s your theory or potential explanation? Do you agree with my two options above, or do you have another one?

[Guest]

This post sort of underscores something I just do not understand.

Despite being dishonest, not trusted folks like this poster are simply giddy over having her elected as President.

Now what does that say.....just for politics, they will demean goodness, and embrace sheer dishonesty simply to win an election for their party. And you wonder why this country is so screwed up.

Oh, I have no doubt that George Soros will get out the vote and the last few years of trying to make it easier, and assuredly less secure to vote, will serve her well.

BUT, is this the way it is supposed to be ? Very alarming to me that people are that shallow, but I suppose it is true.

Good point ...

I've often wondered what it is that makes the Clintons so appealing to so many Democrats when you think they would be fed up and disgusted by their behavior.

Some say "the economy was great" and that's as far as they go ...ie self interest. (we can debate who was responsible for the great economy but not here)

But I think some simply love the way the Clintons have always been able to metaphorically shoot the finger to the Republicans AND get away with it scot free. They delight in it.

My theory ... these people have not done that well in life and are nursing grudges hence revel in this type behavior.. This is what you see when someone posts an idiotic note such as the one you cite where they say "no worries you'll see her presidential papers" This actually evinces a sad and pathetic psychological mindset, or lack of smarts ... or probably both.

[Guest]

I think the formula is not all that mysterious.

It is not so much they are for, in this case, Clinton. It is all about being against the opposition.....NO MATTER THE CONSEQUENCES, lack of character, lack of qualifications, lack of morals party candidate.

It is quite sad in reality to not have the opportunity to do better. And I am not inferring to switch to the opposition. There are many candidates in the democratic party that are much better in every way than just simply going for the ride and annointing Clinton. You can do better.....IN YOUR OWN PARTY! That is the sad part of the situation.

[Guest]

I think the formula is not all that mysterious.

It is not so much they are for, in this case, Clinton. It is all about being against the opposition.....NO MATTER THE CONSEQUENCES, lack of character, lack of qualifications, lack of morals party candidate.

It is quite sad in reality to not have the opportunity to do better. And I am not inferring to switch to the opposition. There are many candidates in the democratic party that are much better in every way than just simply going for the ride and annointing Clinton. You can do better.....IN YOUR OWN PARTY! That is the sad part of the situation.

Mrs. Clinton really has the Republicans running scared, doesn't she? Now, they are trying to say there are many other good Democrats available so we should find them instead of Hillary. We have our good candidate and next President - Hillary Clinton.

Well, the Republicans have such a wide scattering of their own party hopefuls from those gathering 16% of a straw poll vote to less than 1%. No consensus at all in their views, either.

Doesn't look too good for the Republicans at this point in time.

[Guest]

I think the formula is not all that mysterious.

It is not so much they are for, in this case, Clinton. It is all about being against the opposition.....NO MATTER THE CONSEQUENCES, lack of character, lack of qualifications, lack of morals party candidate.

It is quite sad in reality to not have the opportunity to do better. And I am not inferring to switch to the opposition. There are many candidates in the democratic party that are much better in every way than just simply going for the ride and annointing Clinton. You can do better.....IN YOUR OWN PARTY! That is the sad part of the situation.

You know, you make a good point.

Just using the posters on here......they "seem" to be anti police, instead of pro law; they "seem" to be anti white instead of pro equality; they seem to be opposed to strong morals instead of firming them up; they seem to be against financial inequality, except for those who might be democrats.

There are more and certainly this is just from reading on here.

They will post loudly, and with serious accusations here about any police misconduct, but ignore or shrug off any misbehavior by others.

They are quickly on here anytime a black is wronged, but the silence is deafening if a wrong is done to anyone who is Caucasian.

They will come on here and call Gov Huckabee a hypocrite as if he supported the actions of a reality tv person, yet ignore the hypocrisy of so many (rev Sharpton, our President).

They have, in the case of Romney, simply attacked because he is wealthy, yet embrace Ms. Clinton.

And they simply ignore anything bad happening in the world except for the occasional comment about George Bush.

Now, let's be honest, both parties can do the same thing, but in the last few years, it is all about what they are against.

Being against is ok, I suppose, but it just "seems" to me that the message is confusing. It "seems" if someone is killed or unjustly treated, there is this wait period. If the victim is black, they will post long and hard; if the victim is white...I think the expression is "crickets"

I hope I am wrong, but that is how it looks to me. And this is not much about President Obama, although he certainly has not done anything to dispel; he is the President, and with that office comes criticism. It does evoke chuckles however, when one does choose to even post; it is basically either...he won...or....would you do this or that. Never a statement that they support a policy and why, just a note to tell us what they are against.

Maybe it is symptomatic of what has happened in this country. Seems you have to be a democrat or a republican, and just simply being an American and having your opinion doesn't count. It seems to be all about win or else.

[Guest]

Mrs. Clinton really has the Republicans running scared, doesn't she? Now, they are trying to say there are many other good Democrats available so we should find them instead of Hillary. We have our good candidate and next President - Hillary Clinton.

Well, the Republicans have such a wide scattering of their own party hopefuls from those gathering 16% of a straw poll vote to less than 1%. No consensus at all in their views, either.

Doesn't look too good for the Republicans at this point in time.

Perhaps instead of the steady stream of polls, you might go into detail about what exactly are the policy issues on which you support Ms. Clinton.

Now certainly we can eliminate trustworthiness, because as someone who loves polls, you know Americans do not trust her.

It cannot be financial inequality, as she represents almost all you panned Romney for.

Tell us how she stands on ISIS and why you support her. I do not think she agrees with this admin, but you tell us.

Tell us where she stands on job creation, and the new trade initiative.

Where does she stand on Iran, both on a deal and Congress's part.

How does she feel about transparency in government ?

Just a few...should be easy given your early support for her.

[Guest]

Mrs. Clinton really has the Republicans running scared, doesn't she? Now, they are trying to say there are many other good Democrats available so we should find them instead of Hillary. We have our good candidate and next President - Hillary Clinton.

Well, the Republicans have such a wide scattering of their own party hopefuls from those gathering 16% of a straw poll vote to less than 1%. No consensus at all in their views, either.

Doesn't look too good for the Republicans at this point in time.

The post above is an excellent example of how some are nothing more than a one for one amplifier. No thinking.....no basis....just spew!

The post extrapolates what I said....me....one person...who they have no idea of my party affiliation....and use my post to cite....the republicans are running scared. "They" are now touting good democratic candidates? They did nothing of the kind....I...me....said it.

And all the while making no attempt to address the subject. THERE ARE BETTER DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES. We all know that and just keep wondering why some prefer the to have a morally corrupt and taintedby inaction and lying candidate instead.

Now don't forget this is ME not the republicans!

[Guest]

Mrs. Clinton really has the Republicans running scared, doesn't she? Now, they are trying to say there are many other good Democrats available so we should find them instead of Hillary. We have our good candidate and next President - Hillary Clinton.

Well, the Republicans have such a wide scattering of their own party hopefuls from those gathering 16% of a straw poll vote to less than 1%. No consensus at all in their views, either.

Doesn't look too good for the Republicans at this point in time.

I must admit, you are indeed the picture perfect example of a Hillary Clinton supporter… Completely oblivious to any and all information that pertains to her character and honesty ..., congratulations!!

[Guest]

Mrs. Clinton really has the Republicans running scared, doesn't she? Now, they are trying to say there are many other good Democrats available so we should find them instead of Hillary. We have our good candidate and next President - Hillary Clinton.

Well, the Republicans have such a wide scattering of their own party hopefuls from those gathering 16% of a straw poll vote to less than 1%. No consensus at all in their views, either.

Doesn't look too good for the Republicans at this point in time.

Dear Guest: I believe you misread the situation Republicans are not afraid for Republicans, Republicans are afraid for the country.

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Dear Guest: I believe you misread the situation Republicans are not afraid for Republicans, Republicans are afraid for the country.

Personal Best Regards:

And while it will not ever be discussed openly so are a great many democrats.

[Guest]

And while it will not ever be discussed openly so are a great many democrats.

Yes, I agree that many democrats are fearful too. Fighting over politics is one thing ... but watching a country's moral standards and honesty disintegrate is of concern to all (except those who willfully do not want to see I should add)

[Guest]

Perhaps instead of the steady stream of polls, you might go into detail about what exactly are the policy issues on which you support Ms. Clinton.

Now certainly we can eliminate trustworthiness, because as someone who loves polls, you know Americans do not trust her.

It cannot be financial inequality, as she represents almost all you panned Romney for.

Tell us how she stands on ISIS and why you support her. I do not think she agrees with this admin, but you tell us.

Tell us where she stands on job creation, and the new trade initiative.

Where does she stand on Iran, both on a deal and Congress's part.

How does she feel about transparency in government ?

Just a few...should be easy given your early support for her.



Hillary believes that women are intelligent enough to decide what to do with their own bodies.

Hillary believes that women are intelligent enough to decide if they should be on birth control and what kind.

Hillary supports the Affordable Care Act.

Hillary supports all people being able to marry the people they love, regardless of gender, color, religion.

Hillary believes, as does the president, that Iraq should be fighting their own battles and not relying on the US.

Under our constitutional democracy, we have one president at a time. It is unlikely, in my opinion, that there will be a lot of daylight between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, at least for the forseeable future.

Hillary will be giving a policy speech in South Carolina soon. (Yes you read that correct, South Carolina) It seems that Hillary is going to try to win all 50 states, run the tables, shoot the moon.

Listen to her upcoming speech for the answers to your questions. There is still plenty of time to decide who deserves your vote.

[Guest]

The post above is an excellent example of how some are nothing more than a one for one amplifier. No thinking.....no basis....just spew!

The post extrapolates what I said....me....one person...who they have no idea of my party affiliation....and use my post to cite....the republicans are running scared. "They" are now touting good democratic candidates? They did nothing of the kind....I...me....said it.

And all the while making no attempt to address the subject. THERE ARE BETTER DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES. We all know that and just keep wondering why some prefer the to have a morally corrupt and taintedby inaction and lying candidate instead.

Now don't forget this is ME not the republicans!





No, we don't know THERE ARE BETTER DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES. It appears to be your opinion that there are - but that is YOUR OPINION ONLY. I seriously doubt a democratic primary voter gives a hill of beans what you believe.

If there are better candidates, let them declare their candidacy and let them put together a campaign and run - like Sanders.

The democratic primaries will decide who the Democrats advance as their candidate for President of the Unites States.

What a Republican believes is irrelevant.

All these nasty attacks on Mrs. Clinton - and she still beats ANY Republican candidate - declared or not.

What does that say about the Republican candidates?

[Guest]

The antagonizer(s) were away for the weekend and are obviously back.

[Guest]

The antagonizer(s) were away for the weekend and are obviously back.






In other words, you really have nothing to contribute.

[Guest]

In other words, you really have nothing to contribute.

I guess we are even then.

[Guest]

Hillary believes that women are intelligent enough to decide what to do with their own bodies.

Hillary believes that women are intelligent enough to decide if they should be on birth control and what kind.

Hillary supports the Affordable Care Act.

Hillary supports all people being able to marry the people they love, regardless of gender, color, religion.

Hillary believes, as does the president, that Iraq should be fighting their own battles and not relying on the US.

Under our constitutional democracy, we have one president at a time. It is unlikely, in my opinion, that there will be a lot of daylight between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, at least for the forseeable future.

Hillary will be giving a policy speech in South Carolina soon. (Yes you read that correct, South Carolina) It seems that Hillary is going to try to win all 50 states, run the tables, shoot the moon.

Listen to her upcoming speech for the answers to your questions. There is still plenty of time to decide who deserves your vote.

This will amaze you, but I want to give you credit and it is due.

Normally, your posts totally ignore the mention of any issues, and will give you credit that when challenged you came back with a response that mentioned a few.

I am not sure you are correct in what you say but I am sure you will change as she changes !!

What i find curious, and will ask about this. You use her first name, Hillary, as if you know her. Was this not condemned when the President did it with Sen Warren ? Would you ever; well, never saw you or anyone refer to our President as anything but President or Obama.....never saw him referred to as Barack.

I am just curious as it is not a normal circumstance, using the first name like that. Oh, I have seen it down when you or a crony want to make fun of someone on the other side, but using as you did is curious to me !!

[Guest]

This will amaze you, but I want to give you credit and it is due.

Normally, your posts totally ignore the mention of any issues, and will give you credit that when challenged you came back with a response that mentioned a few.

I am not sure you are correct in what you say but I am sure you will change as she changes !!

What i find curious, and will ask about this. You use her first name, Hillary, as if you know her. Was this not condemned when the President did it with Sen Warren ? Would you ever; well, never saw you or anyone refer to our President as anything but President or Obama.....never saw him referred to as Barack.

I am just curious as it is not a normal circumstance, using the first name like that. Oh, I have seen it down when you or a crony want to make fun of someone on the other side, but using as you did is curious to me !!

Nothing wrong with using Hillary. If you feel you want to call the President by his first name, do it. We all said JFK, Ike, or Tricky Dick. Whatever floats your boat and makes you happy.

[Guest]

Nothing wrong with using Hillary. If you feel you want to call the President by his first name, do it. We all said JFK, Ike, or Tricky Dick. Whatever floats your boat and makes you happy.

Ok...not my cup of tea to refer to people like some, not all, that you mention.

But I suppose I misunderstood that the National Association of Women and others were a bit upset with the Presidents use of a first name in referring to Sen Warren.

My "boat is mostly floated" by NOT referring to elected officials or those running for office by other than their title or using Mr or Mrs. But that's just me.

[Guest]

Ok...not my cup of tea to refer to people like some, not all, that you mention.

But I suppose I misunderstood that the National Association of Women and others were a bit upset with the Presidents use of a first name in referring to Sen Warren.

My "boat is mostly floated" by NOT referring to elected officials or those running for office by other than their title or using Mr or Mrs. But that's just me.


Instead of changing the subject to how people are addressed, how about telling us exactly where republicans stand on these mostly women's issues so we can debate them? After all this election is all about issues, and we can address people by their proper title after they've been elected.

[Guest]

Instead of changing the subject to how people are addressed, how about telling us exactly where republicans stand on these mostly women's issues so we can debate them? After all this election is all about issues, and we can address people by their proper title after they've been elected.

You are making a ton of assumptions.

First, I have no idea of who might be the candidate. Two, begin a thread, give YOUR, not anyone else's take on any of these issues and let people offer up their thoughts.

You are enamored with party. It appears that you will support the democratic candidate, no matter up. I am not that party oriented and prefer to listen to candidates.

Fact that you made it about the party seems to indicate that YOUR view will be exactly what they say, no matter if it "evolves" in the next year and a half, See that eliminates you from any discussions.

Give YOUR FEELINGS, not a party line. That is how you learn.

You seem to speak only in "party" and while my view may go more right than yours, I think for myself and like to read or hear all views. I will not be lead by a party EVER.

[Guest]

You are making a ton of assumptions.

First, I have no idea of who might be the candidate. Two, begin a thread, give YOUR, not anyone else's take on any of these issues and let people offer up their thoughts.

You are enamored with party. It appears that you will support the democratic candidate, no matter up. I am not that party oriented and prefer to listen to candidates.

Fact that you made it about the party seems to indicate that YOUR view will be exactly what they say, no matter if it "evolves" in the next year and a half, See that eliminates you from any discussions.

Give YOUR FEELINGS, not a party line. That is how you learn.

You seem to speak only in "party" and while my view may go more right than yours, I think for myself and like to read or hear all views. I will not be lead by a party EVER.

Adding.....people try to discuss ISSUES...ISIS, jobs or whatever, but folks like you turn it into a party discussion. Try discussing the issue and how YOU feel, and forget what the President, Ms. Clinton, the Speaker of the House, or anyone else says. They should not control your thoughts.

[Guest]

Point is, I have never ever seen a candidate in my long life, nor a political party with which I agreed on 100 percent, or probably even 80 to 85 percent.

To agree with a party this far in advance is a bit odd.

I, just me, need to listen as they debate and discuss...is that not what the process is about ?

If not, just look at party registration and declare who wins.

[Guest]

Instead of changing the subject to how people are addressed, how about telling us exactly where republicans stand on these mostly women's issues so we can debate them? After all this election is all about issues, and we can address people by their proper title after they've been elected.

Ok, let's talk about an issue ...

Assuming there is no medical issue regarding the life of the mother, do you favor or oppose aborting babies in the last trimester?

For example, a baby girl in the womb who is 8.5 months and about 7 lbs, and fully healthy based on sonograms etc ... should the mother be allowed to klll (ie abort) that baby if she decides that, after all, she really doesn't want to be a mother?