How is she not embarassed to go into public

[Guest]

Each day it just gets worse.

How does she face people each day....

"Just before Clinton sat down for a 105-minute meeting with the Register's editorial board, the Washington Post posted a news story that said the State Department's request for her emails was "prompted entirely by the discovery that Clinton had exclusively used a private e-mail system."

That contradicts what Clinton has been saying, which is that agency officials asked her for her emails as part of a benign, general record-keeping effort to sweep up "everything from other secretaries of state, not just me," as she said Sunday.

After the editorial board meeting, a Register reporter asked Clinton if she could explain the discrepancy between her characterization of why she turned over the emails and the State Department's.

"I don't know that. I can't answer that," Clinton answered. "All I know is that they sent the same letter to everybody. That's my understanding."

Clinton disputes report of new email discrepancy (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/09/22/clinton-on-conflicting-explanations-about-her-emails-i-cant-answer-that/72651534/)

This woman has lied, manipulated the truth, lied by omission it has become a habit but it seems that it is now unraveling.

[Guest]

what else would you expect.....look who she is married too.....

[Guest]

Each day it just gets worse.

How does she face people each day....

"Just before Clinton sat down for a 105-minute meeting with the Register's editorial board, the Washington Post posted a news story that said the State Department's request for her emails was "prompted entirely by the discovery that Clinton had exclusively used a private e-mail system."

That contradicts what Clinton has been saying, which is that agency officials asked her for her emails as part of a benign, general record-keeping effort to sweep up "everything from other secretaries of state, not just me," as she said Sunday.

After the editorial board meeting, a Register reporter asked Clinton if she could explain the discrepancy between her characterization of why she turned over the emails and the State Department's.

"I don't know that. I can't answer that," Clinton answered. "All I know is that they sent the same letter to everybody. That's my understanding."

Clinton disputes report of new email discrepancy (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/09/22/clinton-on-conflicting-explanations-about-her-emails-i-cant-answer-that/72651534/)

This woman has lied, manipulated the truth, lied by omission it has become a habit but it seems that it is now unraveling.

Idiots that will still vote for her.

[Guest]

MAybe we could hear from ANYBODY that would still consider voting for her....to tell us why?

[Guest]

MAybe we could hear from ANYBODY that would still consider voting for her....to tell us why?

Because she is soooo good looking and has such a charming laugh. :a20:

[Guest]

I am not going to vote for her, because she is running on her husband's name. However, she has been attacked by Republicans since 1978. If you were her, how can you not feel that this email, and Benghazi is just more of the same?

It isn't about the substance of the emails, that were deleted. It's is just about that they were. If the FBI can't find any national security problems caused by her personal email server, you know the Republicans are going to say that the FBI are in the Democrats pocket. With the Republicans, it is always something. This party lives on negativity. It is what they do.

Look at what happens, when you run on your record in national or state government. You have less than 10% approval, or you drop out of the run for president entirely.

One of the biggest complains about Obama was his lack of experience in running government or international experience. Look who is leading in the Republican run for their nomination, three people, who have none! If experience counts, people will hold their noses, and vote for Hillary.

[Guest]

I am not going to vote for her, because she is running on her husband's name. However, she has been attacked by Republicans since 1978. If you were her, how can you not feel that this email, and Benghazi is just more of the same?

It isn't about the substance of the emails, that were deleted. It's is just about that they were. If the FBI can't find any national security problems caused by her personal email server, you know the Republicans are going to say that the FBI are in the Democrats pocket. With the Republicans, it is always something. This party lives on negativity. It is what they do.

Look at what happens, when you run on your record in national or state government. You have less than 10% approval, or you drop out of the run for president entirely.

One of the biggest complains about Obama was his lack of experience in running government or international experience. Look who is leading in the Republican run for their nomination, three people, who have none! If experience counts, people will hold their noses, and vote for Hillary.

It's about her credibility and the never ending lies!

[Guest]

I am not going to vote for her, because she is running on her husband's name. However, she has been attacked by Republicans since 1978. If you were her, how can you not feel that this email, and Benghazi is just more of the same?

It isn't about the substance of the emails, that were deleted. It's is just about that they were. If the FBI can't find any national security problems caused by her personal email server, you know the Republicans are going to say that the FBI are in the Democrats pocket. With the Republicans, it is always something. This party lives on negativity. It is what they do.

Look at what happens, when you run on your record in national or state government. You have less than 10% approval, or you drop out of the run for president entirely.

One of the biggest complains about Obama was his lack of experience in running government or international experience. Look who is leading in the Republican run for their nomination, three people, who have none! If experience counts, people will hold their noses, and vote for Hillary.

I certainly would not tout Hillary's experience as Secretary of State. Pull your head out of the sand and take a look at the world around you. Yes, Hillary has held many governments positions and a few prestigious titles during her career, but what has she accomplished? Name one accomplishment...just one.

[Guest]

Dont forget she's a politician.

[Guest]

I am not going to vote for her, because she is running on her husband's name. However, she has been attacked by Republicans since 1978. If you were her, how can you not feel that this email, and Benghazi is just more of the same?

It isn't about the substance of the emails, that were deleted. It's is just about that they were. If the FBI can't find any national security problems caused by her personal email server, you know the Republicans are going to say that the FBI are in the Democrats pocket. With the Republicans, it is always something. This party lives on negativity. It is what they do.

Look at what happens, when you run on your record in national or state government. You have less than 10% approval, or you drop out of the run for president entirely.

One of the biggest complains about Obama was his lack of experience in running government or international experience. Look who is leading in the Republican run for their nomination, three people, who have none! If experience counts, people will hold their noses, and vote for Hillary.

And you don't think that all of the "experience" that she has obtained wasn't on the coat tails of her husband, yet you will not vote for her for president for that very reason?

As far as comparing Obama with the top Republican candidates, that's like comparing night and day. Not only do these candidates have experience in at least running something, they have also had at least some experience in dealing with international leaders in their business ventures. Trumps (excuse the pun) Obama by a mile!

[Guest]

I certainly would not tout Hillary's experience as Secretary of State. Pull your head out of the sand and take a look at the world around you. Yes, Hillary has held many governments positions and a few prestigious titles during her career, but what has she accomplished? Name one accomplishment...just one.

This is probably her biggest accomplishment::1rotfl:

"Hillary Clinton has logged some serious frequent flier miles. According to the State Department, the most-traveled Secretary of State in history visited 112 countries during her four-year tenure, traversing 956,733 miles -- enough to span the globe more than 38 times -- and spending 401 total days on the road.Feb 2, 2013"

Source:
Hillary Clinton: Countries Visited By The Most-Traveled ...
Something's Gone Terribly Wrong (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.../hillary-clinton-countries-t...The) Huffington Post

[Guest]

I certainly would not tout Hillary's experience as Secretary of State. Pull your head out of the sand and take a look at the world around you. Yes, Hillary has held many governments positions and a few prestigious titles during her career, but what has she accomplished? Name one accomplishment...just one.

Ok I will accept the challenge of naming a major accomplishment ... she basically destroyed the Libyan government and was complicit in the Syrian situation. Thus, she enabled the creation of ISIS and, among other things, the ongoing destruction of what's left of Christianity in the Middle East and the rising Islamic invasion via refuges in Europe.

Her level of incompetence is pretty impressive by any standards ...

[Guest]

Ok I will accept the challenge of naming a major accomplishment ... she basically destroyed the Libyan government and was complicit in the Syrian situation. Thus, she enabled the creation of ISIS and, among other things, the ongoing destruction of what's left of Christianity in the Middle East and the rising Islamic invasion via refuges in Europe.

Her level of incompetence is pretty impressive by any standards ...

Well stated!!

[Guest]

You want her accomplishments well here you go.

5 Top Highlights in Hillary Clinton (http://mic.com/articles/21829/5-top-highlights-in-hillary-clinton-s-secretary-of-state-tenure)

You should take a better look at the creation of ISIS. It's real hard not to blame the current situation in the ME on the invasion of Iraq by "W". If you want to shift the responsibility from "W" to the intelligence he receive, that is totally reasonable, and the right thing to do. Shifting the creation of ISIS to Clinton is a real stretch.

[Guest]

You want her accomplishments well here you go.

5 Top Highlights in Hillary Clinton (http://mic.com/articles/21829/5-top-highlights-in-hillary-clinton-s-secretary-of-state-tenure)

You should take a better look at the creation of ISIS. It's real hard not to blame the current situation in the ME on the invasion of Iraq by "W". If you want to shift the responsibility from "W" to the intelligence he receive, that is totally reasonable, and the right thing to do. Shifting the creation of ISIS to Clinton is a real stretch.

The article is mostly opinions and hyperbole and very thin on substantive facts. As far as the rise ISIS and George W., why not place the blame where it belongs...with Obama when he created a vacuum in the Middle East by withdrawing our troops from Iraq.

[Guest]

Ok I will accept the challenge of naming a major accomplishment ... she basically destroyed the Libyan government and was complicit in the Syrian situation. Thus, she enabled the creation of ISIS and, among other things, the ongoing destruction of what's left of Christianity in the Middle East and the rising Islamic invasion via refuges in Europe.

Her level of incompetence is pretty impressive by any standards ...

Wait for it.......waiting for the Bush's fault defense......wait for it...

It's the liberal way. They are not responsible for anything except what is all good and free.

[Guest]

You want her accomplishments well here you go.

5 Top Highlights in Hillary Clinton (http://mic.com/articles/21829/5-top-highlights-in-hillary-clinton-s-secretary-of-state-tenure)

You should take a better look at the creation of ISIS. It's real hard not to blame the current situation in the ME on the invasion of Iraq by "W". If you want to shift the responsibility from "W" to the intelligence he receive, that is totally reasonable, and the right thing to do. Shifting the creation of ISIS to Clinton is a real stretch.

Ha! I knew it! Someone owes me a coke. I knew you would blame it on Bush. :cryin2::cryin2: So predictable!!! :mademyday:

[Guest]

Ha! I knew it! Someone owes me a coke. I knew you would blame it on Bush. :cryin2::cryin2: So predictable!!! :mademyday:

It's a shame, but you can pretty much book it that President Bush will be blamed for just about anything.

Truth is that this particular issue, as with most is complicated, and I really don't think "Monday Morning Quaterbacking" much further back than the last two or three decisions serve much purpose. As they say it is what it is.

[Guest]

Blame is kindergarten level living.

Real, that is REAL executive positions include everything they inherit the day they take over the position. There is no such thing as making excuses for either doing or not doing something or doing something wrong or as in the case of our current administration, DOING NOTHING AT ALL.

That is for amateurs and shcool yards.

If it is humanly possible to forget the past, and please enlighten us as to the actions Obama has taken to decimate and destroy ISIS. Remember those famous words from over a year ago!!!???

ISIS since his yaking about eliminating ISIS has taken over more area and cities in more countries. They have multiplied in size to become a major, well organized, well financed terrorist entity sworn to kill us all.

This has all happened starting with the Obama talk-job to today.
His doing on his watch...nobody to blame but him.

But enough of this COMMON knowledge about are leader in abesence.

Back to all the good stuff about the unethical, un trustworthy, liar candidate Clinton. Even her own people cannot tell you what she accomplished; how impressive is that? She is what she is. A worn out, past her prime (if there ever was such a thing), tired looking incompetent, untrustworthy, unethical, liar. Yup she can claim to be a possible female candidate that has to have people tell her how to act to be liked....how to APPEAR to be warm and fuzzy (:a20:).....phony.

[Guest]

I am voting for Hillary because she is a Democrat that can beat a Republican. I always vote for the Democrats. Just like you Republicans always vote for Republicans. I think Hillary has the best chance in the primary that is why I am voting for her.

[Guest]

You want her accomplishments well here you go.

5 Top Highlights in Hillary Clinton (http://mic.com/articles/21829/5-top-highlights-in-hillary-clinton-s-secretary-of-state-tenure)

You should take a better look at the creation of ISIS. It's real hard not to blame the current situation in the ME on the invasion of Iraq by "W". If you want to shift the responsibility from "W" to the intelligence he receive, that is totally reasonable, and the right thing to do. Shifting the creation of ISIS to Clinton is a real stretch.


Your position, and argument, is a total joke and most people quickly recognize it as such. W should not have gone to Iraq true, BUT Obie and Hillary inherited a stable Iraq when they flushed it down the toilet in 2011 for purely political gain ...ie 2012 election.

You simply can't keep dodging who's clearly responsible in this case ...

[Guest]

I am voting for Hillary because she is a Democrat that can beat a Republican. I always vote for the Democrats. Just like you Republicans always vote for Republicans. I think Hillary has the best chance in the primary that is why I am voting for her.

Will you still vote for her after she's indicted?

[Guest]

The article is mostly opinions and hyperbole and very thin on substantive facts. As far as the rise ISIS and George W., why not place the blame where it belongs...with Obama when he created a vacuum in the Middle East by withdrawing our troops from Iraq.

Why not, because "W" signed an agreement with Maliki with a date certain for US troops to be out of Iraq. Obama honored that date.

[Guest]

Ha! I knew it! Someone owes me a coke. I knew you would blame it on Bush. :cryin2::cryin2: So predictable!!! :mademyday:

No! What is predictable is Republicans not accepting anything that they did that contributed to the mess in the Middle East. Have another coke!

[Guest]

Why not, because "W" signed an agreement with Maliki with a date certain for US troops to be out of Iraq. Obama honored that date.

Willful suspension of thinking on your part not to mention revisionist history of the worst type .... Obama was the leader who needed to make things works and guess what? He's not a leader and he wanted out so he used the excuse of blaming W, figuring he would be able to bamboozle the usual credulous fellow travelers ... as he apparently did with you.

Obama is the most successful Muslim Jihadi in several hundred years actually ... since 1683 when the Turks were pushed back from Vienna.

[Guest]

Blame is kindergarten level living.

Real, that is REAL executive positions include everything they inherit the day they take over the position. There is no such thing as making excuses for either doing or not doing something or doing something wrong or as in the case of our current administration, DOING NOTHING AT ALL.

That is for amateurs and shcool yards.

If it is humanly possible to forget the past, and please enlighten us as to the actions Obama has taken to decimate and destroy ISIS. Remember those famous words from over a year ago!!!???

ISIS since his yaking about eliminating ISIS has taken over more area and cities in more countries. They have multiplied in size to become a major, well organized, well financed terrorist entity sworn to kill us all.

This has all happened starting with the Obama talk-job to today.
His doing on his watch...nobody to blame but him.

But enough of this COMMON knowledge about are leader in abesence.

Back to all the good stuff about the unethical, un trustworthy, liar candidate Clinton. Even her own people cannot tell you what she accomplished; how impressive is that? She is what she is. A worn out, past her prime (if there ever was such a thing), tired looking incompetent, untrustworthy, unethical, liar. Yup she can claim to be a possible female candidate that has to have people tell her how to act to be liked....how to APPEAR to be warm and fuzzy (:a20:).....phony.

Just curious, what should Obama be doing to stop ISIS? American people do not want him to send ground troops into Iraq, and then Syria. What is his option?

[Guest]

Your position, and argument, is a total joke and most people quickly recognize it as such. W should not have gone to Iraq true, BUT Obie and Hillary inherited a stable Iraq when they flushed it down the toilet in 2011 for purely political gain ...ie 2012 election.

You simply can't keep dodging who's clearly responsible in this case ...

Laugh this one off!

Was Obama wrong to withdraw troops from Iraq? - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/06/26/was-obama-wrong-to-withdraw-troops-from-iraq)

You can't keep blaming Obama for everything that has gone wrong in the Middle East.

[Guest]

Just curious, what should Obama be doing to stop ISIS? American people do not want him to send ground troops into Iraq, and then Syria. What is his option?

American people don't want a war in the U.S. either. Americans don't like to pay taxes. Americans don't want illegal aliens in our country, but the Dems make excuses that it's too hard to remove them. Americans don't want Obamacare but this administration forced it upon us. Americans don't want a lot of things that the gov does, but they do it anyway, right?

Not to belittle the wars in the middle East, but we lost 60,000 Americans in Vietnam (started by a Dem and finished by a Repub, right or wrong). How many have died furthering democracy and freedom in the Middle East? The difference is that we fought socialism and communism in Vietnam and we are fighting Islamic jihad in the Middle East. Like I said, not to belittle the ME wars, but come back and tell me about it once the death toll is anywhere near 60,000 Americans. No war is ideal, but I would rather that we fought overseas than here in the U.S. of A. And the way it is going with this liberal in the White House, the war is getting pretty personal and not that far away.

And before you speak for others regarding sending troops overseas, remember that we have warriors in the military that train every day to be used that way. Not to fight and retreat, but to fight and win. Politicians create failure in wars, not the military. And before you ask me if I have contributed to the effort, yes I have and still would if called. That's the American way.

You need not agree with me, but you do need to explain your reason for going against American standards by adopting European socialist principles. You need to explain why we should even consider a minority complaint against the majority theme. The majority of Americans will bend or compromise to a minority request IF it does not go against ingrained American standards, ethics or morals that they grew up with. Caving in to minority complaints of unfair treatment does not mean the majority should suffer or sacrifice for the few. Tolerance of the lazy, criminal minority by race, or gender challenged only goes so far. We can bend but we won't change our standards, morals and ethics just to cater to the minute minority group of unruly deviants.

[Guest]

American people don't want a war in the U.S. either. Americans don't like to pay taxes. Americans don't want illegal aliens in our country, but the Dems make excuses that it's too hard to remove them. Americans don't want Obamacare but this administration forced it upon us. Americans don't want a lot of things that the gov does, but they do it anyway, right?

Not to belittle the wars in the middle East, but we lost 60,000 Americans in Vietnam (started by a Dem and finished by a Repub, right or wrong). How many have died furthering democracy and freedom in the Middle East? The difference is that we fought socialism and communism in Vietnam and we are fighting Islamic jihad in the Middle East. Like I said, not to belittle the ME wars, but come back and tell me about it once the death toll is anywhere near 60,000 Americans. No war is ideal, but I would rather that we fought overseas than here in the U.S. of A. And the way it is going with this liberal in the White House, the war is getting pretty personal and not that far away.

And before you speak for others regarding sending troops overseas, remember that we have warriors in the military that train every day to be used that way. Not to fight and retreat, but to fight and win. Politicians create failure in wars, not the military. And before you ask me if I have contributed to the effort, yes I have and still would if called. That's the American way.

You need not agree with me, but you do need to explain your reason for going against American standards by adopting European socialist principles. You need to explain why we should even consider a minority complaint against the majority theme. The majority of Americans will bend or compromise to a minority request IF it does not go against ingrained American standards, ethics or morals that they grew up with. Caving in to minority complaints of unfair treatment does not mean the majority should suffer or sacrifice for the few. Tolerance of the lazy, criminal minority by race, or gender challenged only goes so far. We can bend but we won't change our standards, morals and ethics just to cater to the minute minority group of unruly deviants.

Fine. Now answer the question, what should Obama do to stop ISIS?

Comparing not wanting to pay taxes to not wanting to send ground troops to stop ISIS is totally unbelievable. If we don't pay taxes, the country doesn't function. If we don't stop ISIS, the country is just fine. ISIS is going to invade the US with large number of ground troops? That is what you are implying.

Russia with its alliance with Assad, and Iran with its Muslim leaning (Shia, or Suni, I can't tell one from the other) with Iran will take a more active role in getting rid of ISIS. The enemy of our enemy( double negative) is our friend. ISIS is a more direct threat to them, because they are in the immediate area. If you want to call it leading from behind, go right ahead.

Iraq should be split into three countries. ISIS controlling one of them is an option. At some point on the near future, Assad has got to go.

[Guest]

.

Iraq should be split into three countries. ISIS controlling one of them is an option. At some point on the near future, Assad has got to go.

I have to correct a really big typing error. ISIS controlling one of them ISN'T an option.

[Guest]

Fine. Now answer the question, what should Obama do to stop ISIS?

Comparing not wanting to pay taxes to not wanting to send ground troops to stop ISIS is totally unbelievable. If we don't pay taxes, the country doesn't function. If we don't stop ISIS, the country is just fine. ISIS is going to invade the US with large number of ground troops? That is what you are implying.

Russia with its alliance with Assad, and Iran with its Muslim leaning (Shia, or Suni, I can't tell one from the other) with Iran will take a more active role in getting rid of ISIS. The enemy of our enemy( double negative) is our friend. ISIS is a more direct threat to them, because they are in the immediate area. If you want to call it leading from behind, go right ahead.

Iraq should be split into three countries. ISIS controlling one of them is an option. At some point on the near future, Assad has got to go.

You're kidding right? No one is that naive. Iran will take a more active role in getting rid of ISIS? That's pretty funny.
ISIS is not going to bother us? That's naive too. Your head in the sand attitude is what always gets our country into trouble. Liberals always want someone else to do the work for them. Example of lazy and ignorant. It's your passive attitude that allows the enemy to believe we are weak. And we are until they attack us and then America reacts like a stung bear, lashing out.

We could have stayed in Iraq. Check out the facts related to the agreement that Bush signed. I am not going to explain the totality of the circumstances surrounding the agreement. And as we all know, those agreements are fluid and can be amended on the fly. You dont' have to believe me. I realize that this gives Obama an excuse if things didn't turn out for him, and they didn't. He wanted at least one thing/promise to come about in his two terms. He has been such a failure, it's nice to be able to blame Bush, but such a weak tool and points to him being such a weak failure of a leader. Leading from behind is just another way of saying that he is a "follower."

[Guest]

Fine. Now answer the question, what should Obama do to stop ISIS?

Comparing not wanting to pay taxes to not wanting to send ground troops to stop ISIS is totally unbelievable. If we don't pay taxes, the country doesn't function. If we don't stop ISIS, the country is just fine. ISIS is going to invade the US with large number of ground troops? That is what you are implying.

Russia with its alliance with Assad, and Iran with its Muslim leaning (Shia, or Suni, I can't tell one from the other) with Iran will take a more active role in getting rid of ISIS. The enemy of our enemy( double negative) is our friend. ISIS is a more direct threat to them, because they are in the immediate area. If you want to call it leading from behind, go right ahead.

Iraq should be split into three countries. ISIS controlling one of them is an option. At some point on the near future, Assad has got to go.

:ohdear:
The highlight is all that is needed to signify the thinking. I do not think naieve is an adequate descriptor.....not even close. In the spririt of remaining civil....enough said!

[Guest]

Fine. Now answer the question, what should Obama do to stop ISIS?

Comparing not wanting to pay taxes to not wanting to send ground troops to stop ISIS is totally unbelievable. If we don't pay taxes, the country doesn't function. If we don't stop ISIS, the country is just fine. ISIS is going to invade the US with large number of ground troops? That is what you are implying.

Russia with its alliance with Assad, and Iran with its Muslim leaning (Shia, or Suni, I can't tell one from the other) with Iran will take a more active role in getting rid of ISIS. The enemy of our enemy( double negative) is our friend. ISIS is a more direct threat to them, because they are in the immediate area. If you want to call it leading from behind, go right ahead.

Iraq should be split into three countries. ISIS controlling one of them is an option. At some point on the near future, Assad has got to go.

Talk about being criminally naïve ... sheez ... I've seen a lot of incredibly narrow and stupid comments on this board but you take the cake. With your comments about ISIS, you clearly don't have a geopolitical bone in your body.

To answer your question ... Obama is functionally incapable of stopping ISIS because he is not a leader. He is also weak, feminine and irresolute except when he fights the "safe" enemy of Republicans.

A true leader would explain to the country the stakes with ISIS, connect the dots with the Islamic refugee invasion and destruction of Christianity in the Middle East ... and then wage total war. New rules of engagement ... the cities under ISIS control are carpet bombed until everything and everyone living there is dead. Get an Arab coalition army BUT use US troops and let them loose.

Problem solved.

[Guest]

Talk about being criminally naïve ... sheez ... I've seen a lot of incredibly narrow and stupid comments on this board but you take the cake. With your comments about ISIS, you clearly don't have a geopolitical bone in your body.

To answer your question ... Obama is functionally incapable of stopping ISIS because he is not a leader. He is also weak, feminine and irresolute except when he fights the "safe" enemy of Republicans.

A true leader would explain to the country the stakes with ISIS, connect the dots with the Islamic refugee invasion and destruction of Christianity in the Middle East ... and then wage total war. New rules of engagement ... the cities under ISIS control are carpet bombed until everything and everyone living there is dead. Get an Arab coalition army BUT use US troops and let them loose.

Problem solved.

:agree: totally. The only thing that I would do different is.........nothing, just what you said. :thumbup: