there is a penalty to pay.
In corporate America it can be as drastic as losing one's job.

In politics it is not the same. Why is that?

Because they are either law degreed or have sufficient wealth to employ lawyers to make it go away. Or re-word it so as to reflect nothing more than honorable intentions.

And now with Clinton's latest rule break it has become all about why did she do it? Did she hide something? Was there a breach of security?

And while we are all focused on that string distractions how conveniently the entire system glides right past the fact she in fact violated the system and routines spelled out BY THE GOVERNMENT she supposedly represented?

Just another case of selective enforcement.

With her track record, such as it is, including having lost the nomination in 2008 to an unknown newcomer, plus all the questionable issues as secretary of state, why is the democratic party letting her railroad the system to the point of being candidate of the party?

She has proven time and again over the years to be suspect in many issues that involve not being in compliance with the laws or procedures.

Let us just see if this thread will allow opportunity for reasoning and discussion why she is or is not worthy.

Without the name calling, blaming and derogatory sniping that seems to prevail. Contrary to what the anagonistic posters would like us to believe, one can have their belief and support and also others who may have a difference of opinion.

Let us see if a dialogue will be permitted.

Originally Posted by Guest

there is a penalty to pay.
In corporate America it can be as drastic as losing one's job.

In politics it is not the same. Why is that?

Because they are either law degreed or have sufficient wealth to employ lawyers to make it go away. Or re-word it so as to reflect nothing more than honorable intentions.

And now with Clinton's latest rule break it has become all about why did she do it? Did she hide something? Was there a breach of security?

And while we are all focused on that string distractions how conveniently the entire system glides right past the fact she in fact violated the system and routines spelled out BY THE GOVERNMENT she supposedly represented?

Just another case of selective enforcement.

With her track record, such as it is, including having lost the nomination in 2008 to an unknown newcomer, plus all the questionable issues as secretary of state, why is the democratic party letting her railroad the system to the point of being candidate of the party?

She has proven time and again over the years to be suspect in many issues that involve not being in compliance with the laws or procedures.

Let us just see if this thread will allow opportunity for reasoning and discussion why she is or is not worthy.

Without the name calling, blaming and derogatory sniping that seems to prevail. Contrary to what the anagonistic posters would like us to believe, one can have their belief and support and also others who may have a difference of opinion.

Let us see if a dialogue will be permitted.

Your entire post is one of "name calling, blaming, and derogatory sniping". But you don't want anybody else to stoop to that level? Trying to get a monopoly?

I hope this add on is not too off topic, but I don't understand the Democrats being so, I'll call it, "Hillary-minded". Don't they have ANY other viable candidates? Yes, I know there is Elizabeth Warren, but I feel like it is just a gender thing to them in some respects (FYI, I am a female so no mud slinging, please!) On the other hand, the Republicans are always bringing forth fresh faces and new possibilities. There HAS to be more to the Democratic party than Hillary! This has always been one of the biggest turn-offs for me about the current Democratic party.

Originally Posted by Guest

Your entire post is one of "name calling, blaming, and derogatory sniping". But you don't want anybody else to stoop to that level? Trying to get a monopoly?

I am not the OP on this thread, but I don't see what you are saying at all. On the other hand, I don't see that you have added one thing to this conversation by your post. What say you about my post regarding is there anyone else but Hillary, or is that all you got?

Originally Posted by Guest

I am not the OP on this thread, but I don't see what you are saying at all. On the other hand, I don't see that you have added one thing to this conversation by your post. What say you about my post regarding is there anyone else but Hillary, or is that all you got?

Originally Posted by Guest

I hope this add on is not too off topic, but I don't understand the Democrats being so, I'll call it, "Hillary-minded". Don't they have ANY other viable candidates? Yes, I know there is Elizabeth Warren, but I feel like it is just a gender thing to them in some respects (FYI, I am a female so no mud slinging, please!) On the other hand, the Republicans are always bringing forth fresh faces and new possibilities. There HAS to be more to the Democratic party than Hillary! This has always been one of the biggest turn-offs for me about the current Democratic party.

Since Hilary has 95% support among democrats, it has been difficult for other candidates to oppose her. If needed, there could be several more qualified candidates to run for president.

Your last two nominees were John McCain and Mitt Romney, not exactly fresh faces, unless you're talking about Sarah Palin.

Originally Posted by Guest

Since Hilary has 95% support among democrats, it has been difficult for other candidates to oppose her. If needed, there could be several more qualified candidates to run for president.

Your last two nominees were John McCain and Mitt Romney, not exactly fresh faces, unless you're talking about Sarah Palin.

Is this really true or just a Clinton supporter talking out loud.
95% have no problem with her ongoing issues of the law. If even close to true, absolutely amazing.

Originally Posted by Guest

Since Hilary has 95% support among democrats, it has been difficult for other candidates to oppose her. If needed, there could be several more qualified candidates to run for president.

Your last two nominees were John McCain and Mitt Romney, not exactly fresh faces, unless you're talking about Sarah Palin.

I find 95% to be laughable, unless of course you have some data to back that up, then i will withhold my laughter. As far as Republicans, there are many good governors Pence (IN), Kasich (OH), Walker (WI), to name a few. Then there's Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, again just to name a few. I'm not saying that these are all new faces to politics, nor would they necessarily be my pick, but the Republicans seem to have a lot more potential candidates to at least consider/encourage to run. With the Dems it's always Hillary and then whoever else they can scrounge up. Seriously, I would love to hear about other qualified Democratic candidates. I'm sure there are some, but it almost seems like they are suppressed or something. That's very concerning to me and as a Democrat should be to you also. No one on this earth is the be all and end all!

Originally Posted by Guest

I find 95% to be laughable, unless of course you have some data to back that up, then i will withhold my laughter. As far as Republicans, there are many good governors Pence (IN), Kasich (OH), Walker (WI), to name a few. Then there's Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, again just to name a few. I'm not saying that these are all new faces to politics, nor would they necessarily be my pick, but the Republicans seem to have a lot more potential candidates to at least consider/encourage to run. With the Dems it's always Hillary and then whoever else they can scrounge up. Seriously, I would love to hear about other qualified Democratic candidates. I'm sure there are some, but it almost seems like they are suppressed or something. That's very concerning to me and as a Democrat should be to you also. No one on this earth is the be all and end all!

Republican possibilites being Rand Paul (a true nutcase), Marco Rubio (he supports DREAM), Scott Walker (unions would have a field day), Paul Ryan (a loser), Kasich (oh, get real), and so on.

Sec. Clinton is an excellent choice for Democrats and will trounce the Republican candidate.

Originally Posted by Guest

Is this really true or just a Clinton supporter talking out loud.
95% have no problem with her ongoing issues of the law. If even close to true, absolutely amazing.

It is amazing and......it's a MENTAL ILLNESS!

Originally Posted by Guest

Is this really true or just a Clinton supporter talking out loud.
95% have no problem with her ongoing issues of the law. If even close to true, absolutely amazing.

Hillary Clinton has double-digit leads over potential GOP presidential rivals, poll shows - The Washington Post


Read almost to the end and find "she leads with 90 plus percent with registered democrats".

Most of us have been introduced to the concept that if you tell a lie three times it becomes a truth. The Democrats initially believed that Hillary had such name recognition that she could easily destroy any Republican candidate. However with the revelations concerning the Clinton Foundation and now Hillary's private e-mail account while Secretary of State some Democrats are not so sure.

Hillary recognizing this defaults to ïsn't it time that we elect a woman president"? About a year ago I wrote about this alerting readers that what the Democrats did in 2008 they will again try to reproduce in 2016. Isn't it time we elect a minority president? "Isn't it time we elected a woman president"? Well yes provided she is qualified.

Obama was never properly vetted, never had near the bona fides needed for the most important position in the world and now the Democrats feign again with isn't it time. The world doesn't need a man, woman, white, black,....president it needs a true and proven leader with great vision impeccable character moral clarity and the political courage to return this nation to its once greatness

Hillary like Barrack have been mired in one scandal after another there is absolutely nothing that either has done to earn a voters respect or trust. In fact they both continue to take ethical shortcuts leaving behind casualties they have accumulated when throwing them under the bus for their self interests

Hillary's decision to establish a private e-mail while Secretary has the appearance of conflict covert dealings, collusion and of eschewing congressional review. Sh left an opening for our enemies to hack information vital to the national security. It was indeed more bad judgment on her part

Originally Posted by Guest

Republican possibilites being Rand Paul (a true nutcase), Marco Rubio (he supports DREAM), Scott Walker (unions would have a field day), Paul Ryan (a loser), Kasich (oh, get real), and so on.

Sec. Clinton is an excellent choice for Democrats and will trounce the Republican candidate.

Yes see the other thread on why Hillary is eminently qualified to be President ... her cups runneth over indeed

Originally Posted by Guest

I find 95% to be laughable, unless of course you have some data to back that up, then i will withhold my laughter. As far as Republicans, there are many good governors Pence (IN), Kasich (OH), Walker (WI), to name a few. Then there's Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, again just to name a few. I'm not saying that these are all new faces to politics, nor would they necessarily be my pick, but the Republicans seem to have a lot more potential candidates to at least consider/encourage to run. With the Dems it's always Hillary and then whoever else they can scrounge up. Seriously, I would love to hear about other qualified Democratic candidates. I'm sure there are some, but it almost seems like they are suppressed or something. That's very concerning to me and as a Democrat should be to you also. No one on this earth is the be all and end all!

Hillary Clinton has double-digit leads over potential GOP presidential rivals, poll shows - The Washington Post

Laugh away. Near the end of the article it says "she leads with 90% plus support among registered democrats".

Other qualified democratic candidates: Senators Gillibrand (NY), Klobuchar (MN), McCaskill (MO), Brown (OH), Warren (MA). Notice almost all my picks for POTUS are women, all your suggestions are men...coincidence?

Noticeably absent from your list are Jeb Bush (the odds on favorite), Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum (all retreads).

Originally Posted by Guest

Republican possibilites being Rand Paul (a true nutcase), Marco Rubio (he supports DREAM), Scott Walker (unions would have a field day), Paul Ryan (a loser), Kasich (oh, get real), and so on.

Sec. Clinton is an excellent choice for Democrats and will trounce the Republican candidate.

Again, name calling, etc. You might notice that I was not doing that in my posts. I do not like nor trust Hillary Clinton at all, but will not resort to name calling. I was merely trying to ENGAGE in a dialogue regarding this, but honestly some posters (or maybe just one as there's no way to know on this forum) just can not debate intelligently or logically or certainly with an open mind. A mental illness - I don't know, but if that was me it may certainly drive me to that. And once again my question was not answered. It amazes me how liberals (I have to quit including all Democrats in my posts because i don't think that's fair) look at their candidates, or should I say candidate, like they are gods. WOW - I just cannot relate.