State Department Audit Faults Clinton on Email Handling

[Bruce1]

A demagogue is someone who isn't principled. In other words, they say what they need to say to embrace voters rather than what they believe. Bernie Sanders is as far from a demagogue as I've ever seen this late in an election... maybe someone like Ron Paul or Ross Perot would be along those lines. Bernie is as genuine as they come. He's just genuinely nuts.

I think Hillary is saying what she believes. She has run a little further left to combat Bernie, so I think that saying she is a demagogue is more fair than calling Sanders one, but she still pales in comparison to Trump, who has more or less admitted he's just saying what's popular with the voters he wants to attract, and that all of his stances are negotiable/flexible.

Yes, stances are always flexible, but the major problem I have with Trump, and the problem I keep repeating over and over and over again to you guys is that the Trump you think you know isn't Trump. It's a character created to attract voters on a scale I haven't seen in a long, long time.

I cannot vote for someone whose principles I don't understand. That he has not stood on any principles that he actually believes is the biggest turnoff for me - bigger than the fact that he's a loose cannon and would be a poor representative of the United States overseas, IMO.

That you think all three of these candidates are equally demagogic leads me to believe you don't really understand what the word means.

As I've said before, while I don't like Hillary, at least I know what she thinks and where she stands and what to expect from her (for better and for worse) when she is president. I have no clue what to expect from Trump, but based on everything I've seen in the campaign so far - from his missteps to his sophomoric behavior in debates and in rallies - I cannot see myself voting for him.

You are all entitled to your opinions and your votes, as I am to mine. One man can change my mind, and he doesn't have a login on this website. He's got a hell of a lot of work to do with me and many other voters to have a prayer at winning enough electoral votes in November against Hillary.

If it makes you feel better, I vote in California, so I doubt my vote for Hillary will be the one that awards her the state...

Demagogue | Definition of Demagogue by Merriam-Webster
Merriam-Webster › dictionary › demago...
Full Definition of demagogue. 1 : a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power. 2 : a leader championing the cause of the common people in ancient times.

HRC wants to be Pres. Agree? If you re read the definition, having principals isn't in the definition. I thinks she has no principals because in her drive for the presidency he will say anything to anyone in order to get their votes.
Ditto for Trump. Like many Americans I have had it with Washington, period. HRC is the establishment in this elections. Her claims to take on Wall Street, etc are pure hogwash. Is Trump playing on the Washington hatred? Hell Yes! Is HRC playing on Race, Immigration, Rich vs Poor? Damned Right!!
Your Opinion....My Opinion......have a great Memorial Day! God Bless America!!

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Trump is playing on hatred of a lot more than just Washington and the Establishment.

 

[Purdue97]

It strikes me that people on here think my post quality has taken a turn for the worse as I haven't lined up behind Trump.

I'm sorry guys, but I see things differently from you, but that doesn't mean my thought processes are any different nor that the quality of what I post is any different. That said, I do see plenty of what qaz talks about when he dismisses some of your (the group's) posts because it's like reading a comment section on Fox News. Same stuff, over and over again. Blaming things on people who have little to nothing to do with what you're blaming them for.

That last part is the thing that pissed me off in the Bush administration when Democrats would blame Bush for literally everything, even when he didn't have control over Senate and House actions as his party wasn't a majority. I'm smart enough to figure out that the same thing is happening with Obama now - specifically with this ridiculous argument about immigration under Obama - and I see the hypocrisy that Republicans are guilty of which is the same as the Democrats will be guilty of in the future when Republicans are back in control some day. I just choose not to participate.

If that makes you think the quality of my posts is different or that I'm applying any different logic, well, I suggest that that's a you problem, not a me problem.

-The quality really has nothing to do with not lining up behind Trump. I voted Kasich and am going with Johnson in the GE. It does have to do with baiting someone on race awhile back(called you on it) and conveniently applying standards for Trump that you simply are not applying to Clinton. And that is why I compared you to qazplm because that is exactly what he continuously does.

You know where Clinton stands and think she is not a demagogue? Wow. I look at her and I see someone who has pretty shaky ethics although way back to the 70s with lying about investigations, she is for women's rights and equality unless her husband is involved, she was for the Iraq war and voted for it until it was unpopular, pretty obvious she skirted every rule around with email/server/records preservation, and her deals with the Clinton Foundation while SoS shows she is more flimsy on stances than an Afghani warlord.

You can ask all the questions about Trump(substance/policies) that you mentioned above and have some legit points. That said, all of those questions are just as easily and more applicable to Clinton(due to her political record)

-I could not tell you what FOX news says. Not a consistent watcher of news except for the business stations. I find it somewhat ironic that people(you/qaz/few others) say they do not watch FOX, but seem to respond what they think is on FOX a lot.

Not sure what ridiculous argument you are referring too with immigration under Obama. Bottom line is that in 08 as Senator he essentially blocked the legislation that would have passed(see McCain's quotes), he did absolutely nothing with immigration his first two years as a President with his party in complete control, the legislation in I think 2012 had a chance to pass if Senate Dems would have agreed to increase security, and now Obama tried to bypass congress altogether and cry foul with Congress and Senate. The bottom line is his record is pretty sub par with getting something done with immigration. And the reality is since Obama always polled at greater than 66% with Hispanics, he did not want to do anything. He is a politician-he would not want to to do anything to change that.

Would not call it a problem for I do not care much, just more an observation.

 

[Purdue97]

lol the next quality post you type...well, I'll be looking for a bible because it's a sign of the Apocalypse. I have to laugh at the, don't know why folks care about anything Trump says, he's already said he'll be flexible. lmao. Yes, it's so hard to come up with a right answer to a hypothetical that is one of the most serious and often debated questions of the last 60 years or so. I mean no one has ever thought to ask the question of who pays for the crime of abortion. It's so novel and unfair.

Novel and unfair? Do not know. Do not care. Pretty stupid conversation to have as it is decided law. As I said, not sure why the bait is always taken. Trump has already stated he would be flexible in negotiations and NYT said he is not building a wall. So no, not an issue. And never said should not care at all what he says-those were your words.

I do not expect you to reply with anything but a 1) personal attack 2) or a hypothetical cause really that is all you have to offer.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Shaky ethics does not make someone a liar who says stuff just to get votes. You guys don't really get what a demagogue is I guess. Of all the things Hillary is, generally speaking I know where she stands. But I'm done repeating that point.

I think people are up in arms about Mexican immigration because they're poor and don't speak English. Yeah, I said "they have brown skin", but there are people in this country who are bothered by that too, even if it's not you or anyone here. Fact is, we have illegal immigration and security issue on both borders, but we only talk about one even though terrorists are as likely (if not moreso) to live in Canada and come through the North. And that's the stated concern, is it not? I mean, if it's not poor, uneducated people stealing jobs that is.

The stuff about immigration and no action is just partisan crap, the same stuff that pissed you off when Democrats were saying it back in the 2000s.

 

[qazplm]

Novel and unfair? Do not know. Do not care. Pretty stupid conversation to have as it is decided law. As I said, not sure why the bait is always taken. Trump has already stated he would be flexible in negotiations and NYT said he is not building a wall. So no, not an issue. And never said should not care at all what he says-those were your words.

I do not expect you to reply with anything but a 1) personal attack 2) or a hypothetical cause really that is all you have to offer.

That's all I have to offer you, because it's all you deserve. Reflect on that as you talk about how a presidential nominee said he would be flexible on everything so you can't understand why anyone talks about anything he says. That kind of inanity deserves nothing but personal attacks and mocking. Come with something better and you'll get something better, but I'm not casting pearls before...you know.

 

[SDBoiler1]

-The quality really has nothing to do with not lining up behind Trump. I voted Kasich and am going with Johnson in the GE. It does have to do with baiting someone on race awhile back(called you on it) and conveniently applying standards for Trump that you simply are not applying to Clinton. And that is why I compared you to qazplm because that is exactly what he continuously does.

You know where Clinton stands and think she is not a demagogue? Wow. I look at her and I see someone who has pretty shaky ethics although way back to the 70s with lying about investigations, she is for women's rights and equality unless her husband is involved, she was for the Iraq war and voted for it until it was unpopular, pretty obvious she skirted every rule around with email/server/records preservation, and her deals with the Clinton Foundation while SoS shows she is more flimsy on stances than an Afghani warlord.

You can ask all the questions about Trump(substance/policies) that you mentioned above and have some legit points. That said, all of those questions are just as easily and more applicable to Clinton(due to her political record)

-I could not tell you what FOX news says. Not a consistent watcher of news except for the business stations. I find it somewhat ironic that people(you/qaz/few others) say they do not watch FOX, but seem to respond what they think is on FOX a lot.

Not sure what ridiculous argument you are referring too with immigration under Obama. Bottom line is that in 08 as Senator he essentially blocked the legislation that would have passed(see McCain's quotes), he did absolutely nothing with immigration his first two years as a President with his party in complete control, the legislation in I think 2012 had a chance to pass if Senate Dems would have agreed to increase security, and now Obama tried to bypass congress altogether and cry foul with Congress and Senate. The bottom line is his record is pretty sub par with getting something done with immigration. And the reality is since Obama always polled at greater than 66% with Hispanics, he did not want to do anything. He is a politician-he would not want to to do anything to change that.

Would not call it a problem for I do not care much, just more an observation.

Don't know what state you voted in for the primary, but Kasich was pretty much a wasted vote since OH, and voting for Gary Johnson is an even bigger wasted vote. He won't even get the 15% he needs to be able to participate in the debates. You'll join the 1-2% of Americans who vote for Johnson/Weld and perhaps help HRC get elected.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Gary Johnson is essentially Bernie Sanders. Everything's a conspiracy (revolution!) and everything bad is caused by Government (the Millionaire and Billionaire class!).

 

[Purdue97]

Gary Johnson is essentially Bernie Sanders. Everything's a conspiracy (revolution!) and everything bad is caused by Government (the Millionaire and Billionaire class!).

Huh? He is essentially a promoter of small government and proponent of civil liberties.

 

[Purdue97]

A demagogue is someone who isn't principled. In other words, they say what they need to say to embrace voters rather than what they believe. Bernie Sanders is as far from a demagogue as I've ever seen this late in an election... maybe someone like Ron Paul or Ross Perot would be along those lines. Bernie is as genuine as they come. He's just genuinely nuts.

I think Hillary is saying what she believes. She has run a little further left to combat Bernie, so I think that saying she is a demagogue is more fair than calling Sanders one, but she still pales in comparison to Trump, who has more or less admitted he's just saying what's popular with the voters he wants to attract, and that all of his stances are negotiable/flexible.

Yes, stances are always flexible, but the major problem I have with Trump, and the problem I keep repeating over and over and over again to you guys is that the Trump you think you know isn't Trump. It's a character created to attract voters on a scale I haven't seen in a long, long time.

I cannot vote for someone whose principles I don't understand. That he has not stood on any principles that he actually believes is the biggest turnoff for me - bigger than the fact that he's a loose cannon and would be a poor representative of the United States overseas, IMO.

That you think all three of these candidates are equally demagogic leads me to believe you don't really understand what the word means.

As I've said before, while I don't like Hillary, at least I know what she thinks and where she stands and what to expect from her (for better and for worse) when she is president. I have no clue what to expect from Trump, but based on everything I've seen in the campaign so far - from his missteps to his sophomoric behavior in debates and in rallies - I cannot see myself voting for him.

You are all entitled to your opinions and your votes, as I am to mine. One man can change my mind, and he doesn't have a login on this website. He's got a hell of a lot of work to do with me and many other voters to have a prayer at winning enough electoral votes in November against Hillary.

If it makes you feel better, I vote in California, so I doubt my vote for Hillary will be the one that awards her the state...

Have not seen the character creation for votes ina long long time?

It happened in 08 and in 12. Obama gives some great speeches that present him as a centrist while he is anything but that.

 

[Purdue97]

That's all I have to offer you, because it's all you deserve. Reflect on that as you talk about how a presidential nominee said he would be flexible on everything so you can't understand why anyone talks about anything he says. That kind of inanity deserves nothing but personal attacks and mocking. Come with something better and you'll get something better, but I'm not casting pearls before...you know.

Typical of you. Exagerate in your posts what someone said, claim they said just that, and refute it.

 

[qazplm]

Typical of you. Exagerate in your posts what someone said, claim they said just that, and refute it.

lol I know it feels like an exaggeration because what you said was so silly, but nope, it wasn't.

 

[IlluminatiEXPOSETHEMNOW1]

These lib lickers are cuck faces. I think this is why this election is so profound. You got men on one side and all the little cuck'd cucker faces on the other that like to simper lick. What a joke this election is. Democrats all out of ammunition with their commie frothing. Hey licker faces lets all be poor and toe lick like a cuck. Sound like a good future? Well then I got a pair of winners for you. An old hag Hillary that looks more foul than the lady in Wizard of Oz playing the old witch or the old baldy head and his fake man voice haha. Lets trust Mr. last picked in gym class unemployed till 40 brain. Lets just cuck lick. Now there are a pair of winner winner chicken dinners now. You cuck lickers. Why want Trump? Why want a country? You typical cucks. Vote for ugly faces in the democratic party. Why want a pretty 1st lady? Lets have Obama's man wife or these lib licker cuck faces instead now suckazzzzzzzzzzz. Cuck it up now y'all.

Cuck it up dumbos. Why not put a witch in office licker faces.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Have not seen the character creation for votes ina long long time?

It happened in 08 and in 12. Obama gives some great speeches that present him as a centrist while he is anything but that.

I've seen character creation. Yes, I even thought about Obama. I haven't seen it at this level where you have absolutely no idea what the man thinks, and he is seemingly unwilling to tell you. At least with Obama, we had a record to go on regardless of what he said. Trump is a complete unknown and seems unwilling to be open other than to say he's flexible.

As to Gary Johnson, I like some Lib standards, but they trend a little to anarchic for my taste often enough. I don't think he's going to get on the debate stage, either. He may actually be a better candidate than the other two in spite of my misgivings, but a vote for him or any third party remains a wasted vote these days.

 

[pboiler18]

I've seen character creation. Yes, I even thought about Obama. I haven't seen it at this level where you have absolutely no idea what the man thinks, and he is seemingly unwilling to tell you. At least with Obama, we had a record to go on regardless of what he said. Trump is a complete unknown and seems unwilling to be open other than to say he's flexible.

As to Gary Johnson, I like some Lib standards, but they trend a little to anarchic for my taste often enough. I don't think he's going to get on the debate stage, either. He may actually be a better candidate than the other two in spite of my misgivings, but a vote for him or any third party remains a wasted vote these days.

If you want to hear more about Gary Johnson and his platform, listen to his 3 hour interview on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast. Gets you a good sample of what he's about.

Here's a hint....his policy depth might be more shallow than Trump's. I like a few of the things he says about moving healthcare back to the states....but he's far too focused on legal weed than any actual social reforms.

I expected much more from somebody that's as willing to take on Clinton and Trump as he is. I thought he'd be more prepared and nuanced. He's not too dissimilar to either of them. Career politician. Successful in business before and after. He's not a breath of fresh air.

 

[Purdue97]

If you want to hear more about Gary Johnson and his platform, listen to his 3 hour interview on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast. Gets you a good sample of what he's about.

Here's a hint....his policy depth might be more shallow than Trump's. I like a few of the things he says about moving healthcare back to the states....but he's far too focused on legal weed than any actual social reforms.

I expected much more from somebody that's as willing to take on Clinton and Trump as he is. I thought he'd be more prepared and nuanced. He's not too dissimilar to either of them. Career politician. Successful in business before and after. He's not a breath of fresh air.

Successful businessman, I thought he had a pretty good record as governor. I will say his wanting to cut the federal budget by 40% or more is extreme, and socially he is pretty far left. I am with most of that. That said I like thise stances and the person much more than the other two options. And at this point am hoping that a third and even a fourth party can get on a stage or do enough to get funded.

I did not hear the podcast you speak of. I would just keep in mind that he was trying to get a libertarian nomination so some things he had to hammer home. Really no different than Trump or Clinton.

 

[Purdue97]

Shaky ethics does not make someone a liar who says stuff just to get votes. You guys don't really get what a demagogue is I guess. Of all the things Hillary is, generally speaking I know where she stands. But I'm done repeating that point.

I think people are up in arms about Mexican immigration because they're poor and don't speak English. Yeah, I said "they have brown skin", but there are people in this country who are bothered by that too, even if it's not you or anyone here. Fact is, we have illegal immigration and security issue on both borders, but we only talk about one even though terrorists are as likely (if not moreso) to live in Canada and come through the North. And that's the stated concern, is it not? I mean, if it's not poor, uneducated people stealing jobs that is.

The stuff about immigration and no action is just partisan crap, the same stuff that pissed you off when Democrats were saying it back in the 2000s.

Clinton and her relationship with Wall St, oil companies, and CEOs shows she is a demagogue. Cozy with them, they donate to her 'foundation', she is paid a few hundred thousand for an hour or so speech. Then appeals to the populus during a campaign by attacking them.

The immigration history on Obama could definitely be labeled partisan. That does not make it an inaccurate history of what he has done though. I do not get the argument about partisan crap or talking points-if it is true, a legit issue, labeling it partisan or talking points is largely a way to avoid said issue.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Clinton and her relationship with Wall St, oil companies, and CEOs shows she is a demagogue. Cozy with them, they donate to her 'foundation', she is paid a few hundred thousand for an hour or so speech. Then appeals to the populus during a campaign by attacking them.

The immigration history on Obama could definitely be labeled partisan. That does not make it an inaccurate history of what he has done though. I do not get the argument about partisan crap or talking points-if it is true, a legit issue, labeling it partisan or talking points is largely a way to avoid said issue.

She didn't attack them until she was more or less forced on the defensive by constant, repeated attacks by Sanders about speaking fees. Some of those attacks by Sanders are just pointless, but they fit his MO of wanting a political revolution. Do I think Hill takes money? You betcha, just like Bush and Obama, and Bill, and Reagan and pretty much every presidential candidate before them. Does it bug me? Nope, not one bit. Hate the game, not the player. If that bugs you, vote for Sanders. Trump IS Wall Street and sure as hell will take money from them as well.

None of that makes her a demagogue. She doesn't lie to the public about her speaking fees. Meanwhile, your boy just runs around saying whatever he wants to get cheers from the crowd.

Again, I'll repeat this one last time: I don't like Hillary. She is flawed, dishonest, and generally sucks. But I know that. I have no idea what Trump will do, but based on everything he's said and everything he's done to date, I don't think I want to find out.

You guys can keep on trashing Hillary. It does nothing to convince me Trump is any better as a candidate.


The Obama immigration issue shouldn't be labeled as anything. Laws are proposed and passed by the Congress before the President signs them. In the two years they had majorities, the Democratic party prioritized PPACA, which was the party platform. Immigration reform was secondary. When presented with the opportunity to pass a bill, a mixed House and Senate were unable to do so largely because the Republicans didn't think the bill was "conservative enough." So yes, I find the blaming of Obama for lack of immigration reform disingenuous at best, an argument of pure, lazy, dishonest convenience at worst. Obama could not force the House to pass the bill. That's not how balance of power works.

Now, we can argue back and forth about "who started it" with respect to an unwillingness to work at all with the other side, but when presented with six years to rise above the ACA and make good policy, the Republican House, and in the last two years the Senate, have entirely struck out and done nothing. If people are paying attention, the party should get routed out of the Senate and the House because they've done zip, zero, nada. It's beyond frustrating to me.

As much as I don't like the ACA principally, at least that Congress DID something. This one has done nothing, and they're just hoping people will fall in line and just believe that it's because Obama wouldn't sign anything. Hell, for that story to work, you actually have to put something on the man's desk. They haven't. Not even an immigration bill that you all so desperately want and want to blame a lack of progress on Obama.

You guys are just shills for your party. I get it. You're pissed off and frustrated. But you should be pissed off and frustrated at your own. And I'm sorry, I don't think Donald Trump is the answer to fix it. People who are willing to work across party lines ARE the answer. Yet the Republican party has largely shouted down people like Marco Rubio because they're so maaaaaaaaaaaaaad that they lost a bunch of elections in a row. The Tea Party and Ted Cruz and the "hold your breath until you get your way" strategies of Mitch McConnell are a big, big problem for the party and haven't helped the party's perception with the electorate.

It's not getting any better for them. Not with Trump.

I've beaten these two horses dead, cold and bloody. At this point, it's just banging my head into a wall. I'm not going to make any progress with you or any of the other Republicans/Conservatives here because you all won't listen to a damn word I say so long as I'm supporting Hillary in this election. The key thing you should be focusing on is WHY I'm supporting Hillary, which I've stated dozens of times.

So I'm done with it.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Successful businessman, I thought he had a pretty good record as governor. I will say his wanting to cut the federal budget by 40% or more is extreme, and socially he is pretty far left. I am with most of that. That said I like thise stances and the person much more than the other two options. And at this point am hoping that a third and even a fourth party can get on a stage or do enough to get funded.

I did not hear the podcast you speak of. I would just keep in mind that he was trying to get a libertarian nomination so some things he had to hammer home. Really no different than Trump or Clinton.

You can always go for Bill Krystol's and Mitt Romney's new "big announcement" - David French.

 

[IlluminatiEXPOSETHEMNOW1]

The Democratic Party is something worse than Satanic. I am not saying there is a difference in the liberal front Republican Party either. The Royal Institute of Intl Affairs used it to infiltrate conservatives and socially reengineer conservatives to would be simpering liberals under different rhetoric and terminology. Their play largely was working. Both Bush and Clinton are CIA in the same Manchurian Candidate operation. As is Obama I might add. These are arranged marriages and the family itself is a front in the case of Obama and Clinton. The thing with Democrats is how outright Satanic these people are. They mirror everything of a loser to the utmost and everything bad in society. It is the party of vandalism. Vandalism to the United States. Its always been that way. Trump wants to make "America" great again while Liberals want to vandalize the country like a brand new car parked in a bad neighborhood at night.

Trump makes these losers look so bad I love it. Without even trying really. He just went on TV and told the truth and it has these people in a frenzy because they are so evil and it is so naked. It is naked evil. They just don't want the recognition for their evil. Trump gives them that. And they deserve it in spades. I will enjoy watching Trump cuck Hillary and make her look like the cuck face she is.

 

[Purdue97]

She didn't attack them until she was more or less forced on the defensive by constant, repeated attacks by Sanders about speaking fees. Some of those attacks by Sanders are just pointless, but they fit his MO of wanting a political revolution. Do I think Hill takes money? You betcha, just like Bush and Obama, and Bill, and Reagan and pretty much every presidential candidate before them. Does it bug me? Nope, not one bit. Hate the game, not the player. If that bugs you, vote for Sanders. Trump IS Wall Street and sure as hell will take money from them as well.

None of that makes her a demagogue. She doesn't lie to the public about her speaking fees. Meanwhile, your boy just runs around saying whatever he wants to get cheers from the crowd.

Again, I'll repeat this one last time: I don't like Hillary. She is flawed, dishonest, and generally sucks. But I know that. I have no idea what Trump will do, but based on everything he's said and everything he's done to date, I don't think I want to find out.

You guys can keep on trashing Hillary. It does nothing to convince me Trump is any better as a candidate.


The Obama immigration issue shouldn't be labeled as anything. Laws are proposed and passed by the Congress before the President signs them. In the two years they had majorities, the Democratic party prioritized PPACA, which was the party platform. Immigration reform was secondary. When presented with the opportunity to pass a bill, a mixed House and Senate were unable to do so largely because the Republicans didn't think the bill was "conservative enough." So yes, I find the blaming of Obama for lack of immigration reform disingenuous at best, an argument of pure, lazy, dishonest convenience at worst. Obama could not force the House to pass the bill. That's not how balance of power works.

Now, we can argue back and forth about "who started it" with respect to an unwillingness to work at all with the other side, but when presented with six years to rise above the ACA and make good policy, the Republican House, and in the last two years the Senate, have entirely struck out and done nothing. If people are paying attention, the party should get routed out of the Senate and the House because they've done zip, zero, nada. It's beyond frustrating to me.

As much as I don't like the ACA principally, at least that Congress DID something. This one has done nothing, and they're just hoping people will fall in line and just believe that it's because Obama wouldn't sign anything. Hell, for that story to work, you actually have to put something on the man's desk. They haven't. Not even an immigration bill that you all so desperately want and want to blame a lack of progress on Obama.

You guys are just shills for your party. I get it. You're pissed off and frustrated. But you should be pissed off and frustrated at your own. And I'm sorry, I don't think Donald Trump is the answer to fix it. People who are willing to work across party lines ARE the answer. Yet the Republican party has largely shouted down people like Marco Rubio because they're so maaaaaaaaaaaaaad that they lost a bunch of elections in a row. The Tea Party and Ted Cruz and the "hold your breath until you get your way" strategies of Mitch McConnell are a big, big problem for the party and haven't helped the party's perception with the electorate.

It's not getting any better for them. Not with Trump.

I've beaten these two horses dead, cold and bloody. At this point, it's just banging my head into a wall. I'm not going to make any progress with you or any of the other Republicans/Conservatives here because you all won't listen to a damn word I say so long as I'm supporting Hillary in this election. The key thing you should be focusing on is WHY I'm supporting Hillary, which I've stated dozens of times.

So I'm done with it.

Fair enough. It just comes across to me as people critiqued Hilary and want to vote for Trump. You had a response of ask yourself why one wants to vote for Trump, and in a part of this thread focused on why the vote for Trump but do so without critiquing Hilary. The exchange was with SDBoiler. Fair enough, but then you state you do not like Hilary, but are not voting for Trump because you dislike him more and find him unpredictable. It just comes off as the pot calling the kettle black imo. You critiqued the other candidate but did not want others too do so. And, hate to tell you but Clinton attacked Wall St and CEO pay well before Sanders was remotely relevant.

But generally I tend to agree with you some as I think we are in the 60% of people polled that do not like either candidate.

I think Kasich was the one person in the this entire Presidential election that would have had the ability to work across party lines. JMO. That is why I voted for him. I mean, he was hte one candidate not acting like a butt. I think there might be a small chance Trump can too. If one is being honest, one realizes he is not a Republican or a conservative, and actually has some pretty liberal stances. Likely he will not be able too as I see him pissing off a lot of people in both parties though. As for Clinton do not see her being able to work across party lines. If she gets elected all I see is four years of Benghazi/ISIS exploded under you as SoS/Is this treaty or deal signed due to you foundation/are you hiding/destroying record again/ etc etc. She is pretty unpopular, and a lot of Dems in more neutral or conservative states that are running for reelection in two years will likely distance themselves from her because they want to win reelection.

As for the Republican party not doing much I can say I agree. I will also say that Obama has flat out said he would veto certain things, and the Republicans have a really small minority in the Senate unlike the Democrats had for a few years. So they get a pass there. Have to look at it from both sides.

As far as the ACA, well sometimes inaction is the best response instead of just doing something as you put it.

 

[Purdue97]

She didn't attack them until she was more or less forced on the defensive by constant, repeated attacks by Sanders about speaking fees. Some of those attacks by Sanders are just pointless, but they fit his MO of wanting a political revolution. Do I think Hill takes money? You betcha, just like Bush and Obama, and Bill, and Reagan and pretty much every presidential candidate before them. Does it bug me? Nope, not one bit. Hate the game, not the player. If that bugs you, vote for Sanders. Trump IS Wall Street and sure as hell will take money from them as well.

None of that makes her a demagogue. She doesn't lie to the public about her speaking fees. Meanwhile, your boy just runs around saying whatever he wants to get cheers from the crowd.

Again, I'll repeat this one last time: I don't like Hillary. She is flawed, dishonest, and generally sucks. But I know that. I have no idea what Trump will do, but based on everything he's said and everything he's done to date, I don't think I want to find out.

You guys can keep on trashing Hillary. It does nothing to convince me Trump is any better as a candidate.


The Obama immigration issue shouldn't be labeled as anything. Laws are proposed and passed by the Congress before the President signs them. In the two years they had majorities, the Democratic party prioritized PPACA, which was the party platform. Immigration reform was secondary. When presented with the opportunity to pass a bill, a mixed House and Senate were unable to do so largely because the Republicans didn't think the bill was "conservative enough." So yes, I find the blaming of Obama for lack of immigration reform disingenuous at best, an argument of pure, lazy, dishonest convenience at worst. Obama could not force the House to pass the bill. That's not how balance of power works.

Now, we can argue back and forth about "who started it" with respect to an unwillingness to work at all with the other side, but when presented with six years to rise above the ACA and make good policy, the Republican House, and in the last two years the Senate, have entirely struck out and done nothing. If people are paying attention, the party should get routed out of the Senate and the House because they've done zip, zero, nada. It's beyond frustrating to me.

As much as I don't like the ACA principally, at least that Congress DID something. This one has done nothing, and they're just hoping people will fall in line and just believe that it's because Obama wouldn't sign anything. Hell, for that story to work, you actually have to put something on the man's desk. They haven't. Not even an immigration bill that you all so desperately want and want to blame a lack of progress on Obama.

You guys are just shills for your party. I get it. You're pissed off and frustrated. But you should be pissed off and frustrated at your own. And I'm sorry, I don't think Donald Trump is the answer to fix it. People who are willing to work across party lines ARE the answer. Yet the Republican party has largely shouted down people like Marco Rubio because they're so maaaaaaaaaaaaaad that they lost a bunch of elections in a row. The Tea Party and Ted Cruz and the "hold your breath until you get your way" strategies of Mitch McConnell are a big, big problem for the party and haven't helped the party's perception with the electorate.

It's not getting any better for them. Not with Trump.

I've beaten these two horses dead, cold and bloody. At this point, it's just banging my head into a wall. I'm not going to make any progress with you or any of the other Republicans/Conservatives here because you all won't listen to a damn word I say so long as I'm supporting Hillary in this election. The key thing you should be focusing on is WHY I'm supporting Hillary, which I've stated dozens of times.

So I'm done with it.

Do I think Hill takes money? You betcha, just like Bush and Obama, and Bill, and Reagan and pretty much every presidential candidate before them. Does it bug me? Nope, not one bit. Hate the game, not the player. If that bugs you, vote for Sanders. Trump IS Wall Street and sure as hell will take money from them as well.

You changed the argument. That was brought up to explain why she is a demagogue. It is what qaz does all the time after getting whipped in an argument. Not a big concern that candidates take money at all. As long as it is stated where it was from. And Wall ST has been extremely kind to me-so no, I do not hate game. I just used Wall ST as a point to how Clinton is a demagogue.

None of that makes her a demagogue. She doesn't lie to the public about her speaking fees. Meanwhile, your boy just runs around saying whatever he wants to get cheers from the crowd.

My boy? Come on. She did not come clean about her speaking fees she was called out on them after critiquing Wall St/Oil companies publicly. And she has said she critiqued Wall ST/oil company players in her speeches to them but does not release the tapes. Right.

You guys can keep on trashing Hillary. It does nothing to convince me Trump is any better as a candidate.

You know I read your posts looking for a reason to vote for Hilary over Johnson or Trump and how ironic, all you do is blast Trump. And try to make a claim that Hilary is predictable and you know her, or she is a known commodity.

The Obama immigration issue shouldn't be labeled as anything. Laws are proposed and passed by the Congress before the President signs them. In the two years they had majorities, the Democratic party prioritized PPACA, which was the party platform. Immigration reform was secondary. When presented with the opportunity to pass a bill, a mixed House and Senate were unable to do so largely because the Republicans didn't think the bill was "conservative enough." So yes, I find the blaming of Obama for lack of immigration reform disingenuous at best, an argument of pure, lazy, dishonest convenience at worst. Obama could not force the House to pass the bill. That's not how balance of power works.

Not sure what to say. I have hired new grad consultants and $65,000 per year, and I expect them to be able to handle and work on more than one or two projects at once. Sorry I expect more from people making three times as much. The votes are there from Republicans/Conservatives if border security is increased and a path for naturalization without citizenship is laid out. That is a non starter for Dems so I put the fault on both.

Now, we can argue back and forth about "who started it" with respect to an unwillingness to work at all with the other side, but when presented with six years to rise above the ACA and make good policy, the Republican House, and in the last two years the Senate, have entirely struck out and done nothing. If people are paying attention, the party should get routed out of the Senate and the House because they've done zip, zero, nada. It's beyond frustrating to me.

As much as I don't like the ACA principally, at least that Congress DID something. This one has done nothing, and they're just hoping people will fall in line and just believe that it's because Obama wouldn't sign anything. Hell, for that story to work, you actually have to put something on the man's desk. They haven't. Not even an immigration bill that you all so desperately want and want to blame a lack of progress on Obama.

The Republicans do not have a filibuster proof Senate, and Obama has said more than one time he would veto much of what they would like to pass. People often think that one must make a decision that inaction is the worst option. BS. Remember that while in command sitting tight is always an option. ACA is perfect example of it.

You guys are just shills for your party. I get it. You're pissed off and frustrated. But you should be pissed off and frustrated at your own. And I'm sorry, I don't think Donald Trump is the answer to fix it. People who are willing to work across party lines ARE the answer. Yet the Republican party has largely shouted down people like Marco Rubio because they're so maaaaaaaaaaaaaad that they lost a bunch of elections in a row. The Tea Party and Ted Cruz and the "hold your breath until you get your way" strategies of Mitch McConnell are a big, big problem for the party and haven't helped the party's perception with the electorate.

I voted for Perot in 92. I voted for Clinton in 96-largely an anti-Dole vote. Same reason I voted for Bush in 06-it was more an anti Kerry vote. So, no, not a shrill. Sorry to disappoint. "At my own?" Sounds like something Qaz would say. Do not really think like that. I can agree that people working across party lines are the answer and not a fan that Rubio lost. Just do not see how one chooses Trump over Hilary on that working across line point.. Hilary was one of the original Senators that wanted to filibuster Bush's SCOTUS pick, and then was one of the most powerful people in a really divisive Presidential Admin.

As for you stating why you are supporting Hilary, will just say your posts just start attacking Trump. Really just the same of what Trump voters do to Hilary. As for saying you know what she is about and predictable-I just disagree to an extent.

 

[Purdue4Life]

If emails that affected no people are the worst for Hilary then who gives a shit. If this is what Trump is banking on, he is going to lose worse than he already will.

 

[ecouch]

If emails that affected no people are the worst for Hilary then who gives a shit. If this is what Trump is banking on, he is going to lose worse than he already will.

Some of us shoot higher. We like the President of the United States of America to NOT be a criminal.

An interesting aside, the extreme left created Trump and now he is winning.

 

[SDBoiler1]

If emails that affected no people are the worst for Hilary then who gives a shit. If this is what Trump is banking on, he is going to lose worse than he already will.

You have a short memory. Ever hear of Benghazi and Ambassador Stevens? It's funny because her most damning emails around the Benghazi time were supposedly either "lost" or deleted. She always touts the 55,000 emails she turned over - what about he other 25,000+ she didn't even though she is legally required to?