Linda Tripp reveals why 'Hillary Clinton must never be President' | Daily Mail Online

And even more:

Joe Biden

Originally Posted by Guest

Linda Tripp reveals why 'Hillary Clinton must never be President' | Daily Mail Online

And even more:

Joe Biden

Now there's a good combination - Linda Tripp and Daily Mail Online. No thanks.

Originally Posted by Guest

Now there's a good combination - Linda Tripp and Daily Mail Online. No thanks.

OK we got the usual diss the messenger....what do you have to offer about what was said (for a change)?

Originally Posted by Guest

Now there's a good combination - Linda Tripp and Daily Mail Online. No thanks.

Dear Guest: I am not the OP. However, did you read the articles? How would you defend Clinton against her critics? What is it that Linda Tripp said that wasn't true? Isn't it true that Clinton is in violation of federal laws because she used a personal server and because she destroy e-mails that belonged to the State Department? didn't she break federal rules by not turning in these mails until she was forced to? Do you think it OK for any federal employee to ignore federal rules that were enacted to protect information that could harm citizens?

You dismiss Linda Tripp and the Daily Mail Online out of hand but contrary to evidence and common sense believe Clinton?????????????????


Personal Best Regards:

You Dumpublicans are so scared that Sec. Clinton will get the Democratic nomination and win the presidency that you are relying on hate articles by Linda Tripp that are in a fish wrapper?

Even the Regressives that usually post here are almost intelligence enough to see that is akin to having Al Sharpton as guest speaker at your Tea Party meeting discussing gun control.

Originally Posted by Guest

You Dumpublicans are so scared that Sec. Clinton will get the Democratic nomination and win the presidency that you are relying on hate articles by Linda Tripp that are in a fish wrapper?

Even the Regressives that usually post here are almost intelligence enough to see that is akin to having Al Sharpton as guest speaker at your Tea Party meeting discussing gun control.

The triple X kool aide was obviously not enough...now you are spiking it with blindness.

Originally Posted by Guest

Dear Guest: I am not the OP. However, did you read the articles? How would you defend Clinton against her critics? What is it that Linda Tripp said that wasn't true? Isn't it true that Clinton is in violation of federal laws because she used a personal server and because she destroy e-mails that belonged to the State Department? didn't she break federal rules by not turning in these mails until she was forced to? Do you think it OK for any federal employee to ignore federal rules that were enacted to protect information that could harm citizens?

You dismiss Linda Tripp and the Daily Mail Online out of hand but contrary to evidence and common sense believe Clinton?????????????????


Personal Best Regards:

She is a criminal, no doubt about it. But, you have those easily led folks that find being a criminal a positive thing. You can't convince them. This election will be decided by the Independent voters, and they are not so easily led. Billary won't have the large black turnout that Obama had.

Originally Posted by Guest

The triple X kool aide was obviously not enough...now you are spiking it with blindness.

Originally Posted by Guest

You Dumpublicans are so scared that Sec. Clinton will get the Democratic nomination and win the presidency that you are relying on hate articles by Linda Tripp that are in a fish wrapper?

Even the Regressives that usually post here are almost intelligence enough to see that is akin to having Al Sharpton as guest speaker at your Tea Party meeting discussing gun control.

I don't need and probably won't read the article. I didn't vote for her pervert husband, and I don't intend to vote for her. She is just about as much a socialist as Obama and I didn't vote for him either. Whether she gets elected or not, at least my conscience is clear that I didn't contribute to America's future demise. Her ideology doesn't mesh with mine, and that is all I need to know. She is a criminal. She unlawfully and knowingly mishandled classified information. Just one of her later ethical violations. But, the State Department is where a lot of political appointees that contributed to each president, gets their "reward." Call names as you wish. Any adult recognizes the juvenile that acts up at the dinner table. You may be excused.

Originally Posted by Guest

Dear Guest: I am not the OP. However, did you read the articles? How would you defend Clinton against her critics? What is it that Linda Tripp said that wasn't true? Isn't it true that Clinton is in violation of federal laws because she used a personal server and because she destroy e-mails that belonged to the State Department? didn't she break federal rules by not turning in these mails until she was forced to? Do you think it OK for any federal employee to ignore federal rules that were enacted to protect information that could harm citizens?

You dismiss Linda Tripp and the Daily Mail Online out of hand but contrary to evidence and common sense believe Clinton?????????????????


Personal Best Regards:

They can't defend her. That's why they call names and blame Bush. Makes you wonder about the mental capacity of those that knowing support those that they can't defend. Like a very wiser person once said, those folks are just a few fries short of a Happy Meal!

Dear Guests,
Suppose, just suppose, that by some fluke that Sec. Clinton DOES win the Presidency against ______. Are all of you going to spend the next 8 years grousing over every piece of soundbite you can find?

Get out to your candidate of choice at this time and start working for him/her. Contribute money in large amounts to their campaigns. Let the candidate lead a good life with your money while they are still a candidate. Stir up the community with signs of support on your car and cart. Of course, be prepared for them to be taken off by opposing candidate supporters.

Stop just talking about how terrible the Democrats are but actually do something positive so when the Republican nominee is named, you might have had something to do with it. At that point, donate more money and time to the Republican PACs and start working volunteer time for that candidate. Get fired up!

Then, in November, get together with your fellow campaign workers, watch the returns on television, and hopefully see Karl Rove melt down like he did in 2012 when Ohio was called for Obama. That was PRICELESS.

Or you can just sit back, do nothing except gripe on TOV. The result will be the same, no matter what you do.

HILLARY CLINTON WINS THE PRESIDENCY IN 2016.

Personal Best Regards:

Originally Posted by Guest

You Dumpublicans are so scared that Sec. Clinton will get the Democratic nomination and win the presidency that you are relying on hate articles by Linda Tripp that are in a fish wrapper?

Even the Regressives that usually post here are almost intelligence enough to see that is akin to having Al Sharpton as guest speaker at your Tea Party meeting discussing gun control.

I don't want to get involved except I suggest you be nice person and plan to visit Hillary in prison after she gets convicted for mishandling 100s of classified emails because she is apparently an idiot as well as dishonest.

I am sure when she isn't convicted of anything everyone here will say they were wrong. Of course, that will be the case. Anyone that reads the posts on any one of threads here can see how opened minded the Republicans here are.

People never change their party affiliation. Right Donald Trump! When they do, they always have good things to say about their former friends. Donald Trump is heaping praise on Hillary right now. Anyone that can't see that just isn't looking.

Hillary was the real force in Bill's presidency. She ran things despite all evidence to the contrary. I think this woman has confused Nancy and Ron with Hillary and Bill. The cameras can make someone look good or bad. Ten years or so after Reagan left office, there was a news report to that effect.

A reporter asked Reagan a question, and he was on camera. Reagan head was bobbing up and down. He had no clue how to answer the reporter. Nancy was behind him, and also on camera. Nancy said, "That problem has come to our attention." Reagan repeated that word for word to the reporter. "That problem has come to our attention." Nancy, "we should have a solution to that problem soon." Ron "we should have a solution to that problem soon." Nancy, "when we do, we will contact you." Ron, "when we do, we will contact you."

If Tripp came forward in the late 90's, she might be believable. Now, only closed minded Republicans would believe her nonsense. If you go back in time, you can make any public person look good or bad.

I have said this before, Hillary has been running for president, since at least the nineties. How can any women endure the public humiliation she did, and still stay with her husband? That doesn't mean she was running the show in the 90's. Hardly!

My God could it be, a republican doesn't like Karl Rove! There is hope. By the way, I am not voting for Hillary. It will Sanders, or Kasich in the primary. It will depend on the one needs my vote more.

There is no federal law that stopped her from using a personal server.

Did she destroy emails that belonged to the state department? She might have, but how are you going to prove it?

Turn the mails to the fifth Benghazi investigation. You know the current one that the Chairman Trey Gowdy called a prosecution. That one. The one that is going to last until November, 2016. Given all the leaks out of these hearing, can you blame any candidate for not handing private emails over to the opposing party in the current world of politics.

Should she have handed the server to an independent party? No! She should sat there with an independent party, and gone over the emails one by one. However, the server should have never left her sight, or the independent party's sight.

Trust is a two way street. Only a fool would trust the Republicans with anything personal or not.

Originally Posted by Guest

Dear Guests,
Suppose, just suppose, that by some fluke that Sec. Clinton DOES win the Presidency against ______. Are all of you going to spend the next 8 years grousing over every piece of soundbite you can find?

Get out to your candidate of choice at this time and start working for him/her. Contribute money in large amounts to their campaigns. Let the candidate lead a good life with your money while they are still a candidate. Stir up the community with signs of support on your car and cart. Of course, be prepared for them to be taken off by opposing candidate supporters.

Stop just talking about how terrible the Democrats are but actually do something positive so when the Republican nominee is named, you might have had something to do with it. At that point, donate more money and time to the Republican PACs and start working volunteer time for that candidate. Get fired up!

Then, in November, get together with your fellow campaign workers, watch the returns on television, and hopefully see Karl Rove melt down like he did in 2012 when Ohio was called for Obama. That was PRICELESS.

Or you can just sit back, do nothing except gripe on TOV. The result will be the same, no matter what you do.

HILLARY CLINTON WINS THE PRESIDENCY IN 2016.

Personal Best Regards:

Dear Poster: There you go again posing as me. I suppose I should be flattered but your message no matter how you try and hide it comes out with an obvious bile against conservatives. I talk about issues not people. So if you are going to imitate me at least do a good version of it.

And by the way you may want to consider bona fides, character,charm, intelligence, etc as criteria then direct it toward the various candidates in the field to see who best meets that criteria.

Personal Best Regards: