Thank you for your words. It's great that you have found a candidate to believe in. Please enjoy the feeling that there is a candidate out there who actually *deserves* your vote. But please also do keep in mind the fact that your preferred candidate has feet of clay.
Hillary personally accepted a bribe of $675,000 from Goldman Sachs, an enemy of the Free World that some call the vampire squid because of its desire to install Manchurian candidates in most every national government. The money was supposed to be for “speeches” but Hillary is unable to produce even redacted transcripts for those speeches, nor has anyone come forward to say they attended, likely because the speeches never actually happened. Of course, Hillary is quite capable of giving actual speeches, so she didn’t *need* to lie about what the money was for, but she lied anyway. This “cheating for its own sake” seems to be a repeating pattern with her. Anyway, selling speeches and then not delivering them is fraud, and it is a crime to take a bribe in exchange for protecting banksters from the jail-time that they deserve.
Hillary did not *need* to cheat in order to win Nevada. She certainly didn’t need to have “her” people, supposedly-neutral party apparachiks, blatantly treat the delegates differently based on whom they were pledged to. There was no need to bring in police to protect her cronies from the nonexistent violence of those whom they had just wronged. There was no need for the police to all be dressed in brownshirts, as if the Democratic Party were comprised of Nazis. There was no actual need for any of this; it was all for show. “Vote for me because I’m a corrupt politician who cheats and gets away with it.” There are apparently Republicans who find this behaviour attractive, but I don’t.
Voting in Phoenix was so bad, we cannot know how many delegates Hillary truly deserves. Hillary could have made a show of tut-tutting the people who did this, insisting that everyone should have the right to get their vote counted in this free country. Al Gore might have refused to accept the votes of tainted delegates, but Hillary is not Al.
The City of New York is auditing the Board of Elections because it deleted 126,000 people, overweighted with college students, from the party rolls at the last minute, without notice or explanation or reason, apparently for fear that some of them might possibly vote for Bernie. This is not what one might call “a free and fair election”. This is just as wrong as when Republicans delete Blacks from the voter rolls for fear that some of them might vote for a Democrat. Again, Hillary could have made a statement that what happened in NYC was wrong. She did not. How many delegates from New York does Hillary actually deserve? We don’t know, and Hillary seems perfectly okay with that. I’m not. This is election-tampering. It doesn’t matter that Republicans do it too; I expect better of Democrats. It doesn’t matter that nobody ever goes to jail for it. Interfering with elections is still a crime. Did Hillary give the order to delete those voters? What did she know and when did she know it? If the USA were a free country, we would have the right to expect an investigation. Maybe it was the local office acting on their own initiative, hoping to curry favour with the Clinton-leaning national party establishment; or maybe she’s guilty as sin. I don’t know.
Why no, actually. Donald is a racist sexist pig and I certainly wouldn’t want to be a member of his household. There are reports that Hillary’s mean streak is a mile wide, so maybe her household isn’t a nice place to be, either. I don’t think I would want to have a beer with either of them. But we were talking about which person would make better decisions as president.
You cannot conclude that something isn’t a crime just because a Republican is observed to get away with it. Hillary’s private server was illegal, just like Colin’s. But no one is claiming that Colin ran a deliberately-insecure server that allowed foreign governments to steal classified information. Hillary’s two excuses for this behaviour are basically that she’s ”often confused” (≈ McCain’s “senior moment”?) and also she ”doesn’t know much about computers”. Either of these excuses would explain why the server was insecure when originally set up, but neither explains why it stayed that way for four years. Lots of people tried to get her to fix it, but she told them to never speak of the Secretary’s personal email server again. This is not the behaviour of a person who doesn’t know much about computers and becomes concerned when someone tells her she’s using them wrong. This is not a person having a brief senior moment and then coming to her senses when the next person brings up the same issue. This is a Manchurian candidate who *wanted* the server to be insecure. So who is she working for? Maybe I’m naïve, but I just can’t imagine Hillary as a secret agent for Russia or China. Maybe Saudi Arabia, but most likely Goldman Sachs.
Instead of copying the Republicans and their criminality, why not prosecute them instead? Oh right — that approach doesn’t yield as much bribe money, so Democrats can’t possibly do that. The USA is a thoroughly-fucked banana republic, with two political parties trying to outdo each other in the number of laws they get away with breaking. In a country where the main benefit of elected office is immunity from prosecution, only criminals want to get elected.
I’ve always wondered what Hillary actually thought of Vince Foster’s death. At the time, she seemed remarkably unemotional about it.
I didn’t mention Benghazi. I guess you want to bring it up because it fits the narrative of “poor persecuted Hillary”. But the Republicans persecute all female politicans. And possibly they still hate her for HillaryCare. If Clinton today were the same woman who once proposed HillaryCare, which was way better than what we actually got, I could vote for her. But she threw HillaryCare under the bus in 2008 and made a show of burying her hachet with the health-insurers, who deserve a lower circle of Hell than even the lawyers.
Indeed, the Benghazi testimony was one of Hillary’s finest days. She is great when she’s accused of things she didn’t do, not so great when she actually did the crimes such as with the email server, election fraud, Wall St bribery, etc.
What exactly does this have to do with corruption? Or are you using “corrupt” as a synonym for “immoral” here? Or perhaps it’s the Mafia ties that every casino operator needs to deal with and so there are rumors swirling around Donald? Yes, Trump’s businesses have gone bankrupt, which puts him in the same category as G.W. Bush. I didn’t like Bush, but the country survived.
Lawyers are disgusting and Trump has no qualms about hiring them. I wish businesses wouldn’t sell their names during bankruptcy. I wish it were a crime to mislead customers with a name that you purchased from someone who can’t or won’t stand behind your product. But that’s not “corruption” unless you’re claiming that Trump bribed the judge, or that anything involving lawyers is corrupt (sometimes I believe that). By the way, Hillary is a lawyer.
I agree that the death of the Republican Party would be good for the country — but what happens after that? America has a strong tradition of having precisely two major parties. Twice before in US history the right-wing party has died; each time the left party has split in order to restore the Holy Two-Party System. Since Hillary’s tactics are pretty much the Republican playbook already, she would be well-suited to lead the new right-wing party of the USA. And then what exactly have you gained? How is Hillary any better than Richard Nixon? He too was persecuted, for things he didn’t do and also things he did. Eventually his party had to turn on him to save their own butts. When will the Democrats turn on Hillary?
Hillary isn’t vicious towards Republicans. She’s vicious towards anyone who doesn’t work on Wall St. She says she cares about the common man, but she is lying. She doesn’t care about you and won’t mind when Wall St. steals your retirement money again, as long as she gets a cut. Of course, love is blind so you cannot see this.
Suppose Hillary wins in November and most down-ballot Republicans lose because everyone hates Trump, so the GOP dies. The Bernie supporters split off into a new party. Then in 2020, Hillary runs for re-election. The new left party nominates Elizabeth Warren (yes, I know she doesn’t want the job, this is just a hypothetical). Both candidates are women, both candidates are still playing the political game despite years of continuous mud-slinging by Republicans, but Elizabeth hates Wall St while Hillary loves them. How will you vote?
If the presidency has actual power, how come Obama is so ineffective? He commands the DEA to stop bothering people in legal-weed states, then they ignore him and do what they please. He’s spent the last eight years asserting that he wants to get rid of the nuclear arsenal; it’s still there. So is Guantánamo, despite his empty claims that “we do not torture”.
The president cannot do much by himself. He needs his party’s congresscritters, particularly for amending the budget.
Donald has said that if Caitlyn Jenner needed to use the facilities at one of his resorts, he would let her use any bathroom she wanted. More recently, he has said that the membership of the Republican Party generally believes that people should use the bathroom for the gender on their birth certificates, so he’s going with that. When he as president pushes for an anti-tranny law, that’s not his own personal opinion. That’s just party-loyalty maintenance, which a president must engage in to have any ability to get things done.
This is sort of my point. The president can start wars on his own, without party backing. That’s probably the strongest power of the office. W. wanted a war with Saddam Hussein. He did *not* want to go to war with his personal friends, the Saudi royal family. When people told Bush things he didn’t want to hear, they got fired. As SoS, Hillary did the same thing by silencing the people trying to tell her that her email server was a sitting duck.
Does Hillary want to start a war with someplace? She doesn’t say. Goldman Sachs has an enemies list, but those countries are mostly democracies that won’t accept its bribes, so a war will be difficult to start. Donald says he wants to have a war with ISIS, but who really knows? Bernie is anti-war.
You are wrong. The deregulation of banks was not done by Bush. That was Bill Clinton in 1999. Facts matter. Hillary will not regulate banks. She will just take bribes from them.
Bush Jr was not the first president to approve torture, just the first one to personally select torture techniques for individual prisoners at Guantánamo. Ever hear of the School of the Americas? It was run by the CIA. Torture was part of the curriculum, officially so starting with Ronald Reagan. You have lived your whole life in a country known for torturing innocent people, especially black men in Chicago.
Bush’s war of choice cost an estimated 1,500,000 Iraqi lives, plus the 4,500+ American ones.
Bill Clinton was unable to remove the leash from Wall St on his own. He needed the support of Congress. Using his bully pulpit, Clinton could have made it embarrassing for Congress to be seen undoing the Glass-Steagall Act, a bullwark designed to prevent a repeat of the Great Depression. Instead, he and his wife collected $150,000,000 from Wall St “investments” for their services in betraying the People of the United States. Nice work if you can get it!
This is what people say during every election. John Adams said the country
would be destroyed if people voted for Thomas Jefferson instead of him.
But the USA is still here, at least in name. I don’t plan to vote for
Trump, but I think he is less interested in promoting bribery than Clinton,
Bush Jr, Obama, or now Clinton again. What we need is a president who
doesn’t work for Wall St, an actual liberal like Kennedy or Carter or
Sanders. But Americans are not permitted to choose a leader who isn’t
approved by the
> I bet there are a lot of cooking recipies, probably some wonderful family travel photos. Is there any evidence that this jailed Russian "hacker" has hacked anything?!?
It doesn’t matter how many emails were recipes or family photos. The State Dept has already admitted that at least 1,600 of her emails should have been Secret and there were at least 22 that should have been classified Top Secret. But Hillary failed to classify them because she wanted them on her private server, where such things must never reside.
There is no (known) Russian “hacker”. There is a Romanian fellow code-named Guccifer, who has released the personal emails of other famous people; he has been extradited to the USA so he can face charges for hacking. He plans to plead guilty.
Putin says he has the emails. I don’t know if he’s lying. I don’t know if he got them from Guccifer or via his own agents, although Guccifer’s lack of public release of the emails suggests that either he never had them or has sold them to Putin.
Why not? Bernie has tremendous stamina for a man his age. He has been criss-crossing the country for the primary, rarely taking a day off to rest his weary bones. Trump’s shtick is well-known and so briefing books on his tricks can be prepared for Bernie.
Bernie lived in Israel for awhile, although this has been scrubbed from his official biography. I don’t know whether he lived in constant fear for his life then, but it’s possible. He has never explained why he moved back to the US and settled in Vermont, but did not adopt the local accent.