arkrud wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

arkrud wrote:

holfresh wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

fishmike wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Honestly, I've lost the chain of thought regarding our discussion. It has gone all over the place.
When I make a fair point or answer a question, you just jump to what is wrong with something I've said.

Perhaps it's because I dispute your point are fair, and instead of just carpet bombing the thread with unsubstantiated declarations of my personal opinion, I'm explaining why your points aren't fair.

I'm not surprised it hard to keep track, because there is no objective grounding to your "points"... all they are is again, intellectual nihilism. All you seem to believe are conspiracy-driven Youtube videos.

Time and time again, I make valid points and you just jump over them. You attack what you think is the weakest. You leave most behind.

I think logic and deduction are important and central to this debate, but when you go to the "Well, she wasn't convicted." argument, while leaving valid points behind, now you create an argument based on your standards. Again - Al Capone was only a tax evader.

And this is exactly why I make a habit of quoting every specific point I respond to, so this doesn't happen. Or at least there is no excuse for it.

I have never once responded "well, she wasn't convicted." I haven't ever implied anything like it. I haven't even engaged you in ANY discussion or retort about Hillary Clinton at all.

And this is demonstrative of the problem I've identified. Lack of an objective grounding. You're just repeating a overarching POV (rather than facts or data) in absence of any context.

And why you make a habbit of skipping over any points of relevance. Seems like the Hillary supporters often mention the "conviction" thing, if you didn't say it, no big deal.

What do you think of Hillary accepting 25 million from Saudi Arabia?
What does your heart say? Your mind is extremely clear.

See posts from Bonn and myself. Now it appears you are grasping for anything that casts doubt and shade on her. Whatever their motives they generate a massive amount of money for philanthropy. You are really whiffing here and its becoming apparent you have no interest in truth. Cmon man

Sorry bro, I forget, it's all about Donald Trump Bashing and his incorrect (and rude) use of the word Pu$$y.

What is 25 million accepted from a terrorist organization? Yeah, it would just be someone else.
And it would be another country abusing woman, homosexuals, etc.
And it is old news, not like Trumps 11 year old saying of... oh wait.

Looks like Clinton supporters are guiding things...

Curious though, what does your heart say?

Did you read my post? Hillary did NOT accept money from these countries and did NOT take one penny from them.

What money? Clintons do not need any money... they already have enough.
Not sure why this bunch of lairs has more respect that Trump bunch.
In my books they can all go hell together.
I have my own view of the world and do not want anybody or everybody to force any of theirs on me.
So I think in this respect Trump is exactly what I want to see running for president.
He is the symptom of change. Most likely he does not know it and it is not his intentions by any means.
But the change is needed badly and it will manifest itself if we want it or not.
The way the dictatorship of "political correctness" and "pretensions morality" went will not end good for the country.
We need to heal our-self from this terrible illness and this elections are very good shock therapy to start the heeling process.

Trump is for change??..What change are you referring to because a lot of his proposals are like previous republicans..Cut tax for the rich and put troops on the ground in Iraq..Scap Obamacare and war with Iran..Arrogance in the Oval offic..What change are you seeing that I'm not seeing?? Bromance with Putin??

The only thing different is he says he will bring jobs back which is impossible..That's total nonsense..Those industries are long gone..Coal is dead..

Change of the attitude is the biggest change.
Everybody are tired of lies and empty promises from both Reps and Dems.
Trump is not a solution but him being supported by 37% of voters is a sign of things to come.
Everyone with this warmed up little pony place in "the system" should start looking for real work to do.
The politicians and establishments are so irrelevant that it is not even funny.

Sorry Akrud, your math is wrong.

If Trump had 37% of support independent of baked-in Republican support, he'd win in a landslide. That vast majority of that 37% is people who would only vote Republican in any circumstance, people who are holding their nose while supporting him because they are republican zealots.

What small, single percentage of Trump-only supporters that may or may not exist are likely not sophisticated and intelligent enough to organize following defeat.

If people want to already start declaring the vague platitude of "just wait" as their consolation prize 3 weeks before the election, no rational argument is going to convince them otherwise ... so enjoy.

See ya in 2020 I guess. Say hello to the Tea Party in meantime.

I absolutely will wait because I want both Dems and Reps to be defeated.
They both worthless. And both Trump and Hilary are worthless 10-fold.

They won't be replaced until an informed, motivated, funded alternative with broad, not fringe appeal presents itself.

Who or what is that?

Elections will remain a binary choice until there is 3rd or 4th or 5th choices.

So again, who or what are they?

Welpee wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

arkrud wrote:

holfresh wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

fishmike wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Honestly, I've lost the chain of thought regarding our discussion. It has gone all over the place.
When I make a fair point or answer a question, you just jump to what is wrong with something I've said.

Perhaps it's because I dispute your point are fair, and instead of just carpet bombing the thread with unsubstantiated declarations of my personal opinion, I'm explaining why your points aren't fair.

I'm not surprised it hard to keep track, because there is no objective grounding to your "points"... all they are is again, intellectual nihilism. All you seem to believe are conspiracy-driven Youtube videos.

Time and time again, I make valid points and you just jump over them. You attack what you think is the weakest. You leave most behind.

I think logic and deduction are important and central to this debate, but when you go to the "Well, she wasn't convicted." argument, while leaving valid points behind, now you create an argument based on your standards. Again - Al Capone was only a tax evader.

And this is exactly why I make a habit of quoting every specific point I respond to, so this doesn't happen. Or at least there is no excuse for it.

I have never once responded "well, she wasn't convicted." I haven't ever implied anything like it. I haven't even engaged you in ANY discussion or retort about Hillary Clinton at all.

And this is demonstrative of the problem I've identified. Lack of an objective grounding. You're just repeating a overarching POV (rather than facts or data) in absence of any context.

And why you make a habbit of skipping over any points of relevance. Seems like the Hillary supporters often mention the "conviction" thing, if you didn't say it, no big deal.

What do you think of Hillary accepting 25 million from Saudi Arabia?
What does your heart say? Your mind is extremely clear.

See posts from Bonn and myself. Now it appears you are grasping for anything that casts doubt and shade on her. Whatever their motives they generate a massive amount of money for philanthropy. You are really whiffing here and its becoming apparent you have no interest in truth. Cmon man

Sorry bro, I forget, it's all about Donald Trump Bashing and his incorrect (and rude) use of the word Pu$$y.

What is 25 million accepted from a terrorist organization? Yeah, it would just be someone else.
And it would be another country abusing woman, homosexuals, etc.
And it is old news, not like Trumps 11 year old saying of... oh wait.

Looks like Clinton supporters are guiding things...

Curious though, what does your heart say?

Did you read my post? Hillary did NOT accept money from these countries and did NOT take one penny from them.

What money? Clintons do not need any money... they already have enough.
Not sure why this bunch of lairs has more respect that Trump bunch.
In my books they can all go hell together.
I have my own view of the world and do not want anybody or everybody to force any of theirs on me.
So I think in this respect Trump is exactly what I want to see running for president.
He is the symptom of change. Most likely he does not know it and it is not his intentions by any means.
But the change is needed badly and it will manifest itself if we want it or not.
The way the dictatorship of "political correctness" and "pretensions morality" went will not end good for the country.
We need to heal our-self from this terrible illness and this elections are very good shock therapy to start the heeling process.

Trump is for change??..What change are you referring to because a lot of his proposals are like previous republicans..Cut tax for the rich and put troops on the ground in Iraq..Scap Obamacare and war with Iran..Arrogance in the Oval offic..What change are you seeing that I'm not seeing?? Bromance with Putin??

The only thing different is he says he will bring jobs back which is impossible..That's total nonsense..Those industries are long gone..Coal is dead..

Change of the attitude is the biggest change.
Everybody are tired of lies and empty promises from both Reps and Dems.
Trump is not a solution but him being supported by 37% of voters is a sign of things to come.
Everyone with this warmed up little pony place in "the system" should start looking for real work to do.
The politicians and establishments are so irrelevant that it is not even funny.

Sorry Akrud, your math is wrong.

If Trump had 37% of support independent of baked-in Republican support, he'd win in a landslide. That vast majority of that 37% is people who would only vote Republican in any circumstance, people who are holding their nose while supporting him because they are republican zealots.

What small, single percentage of Trump-only supporters that may or may not exist are likely not sophisticated and intelligent enough to organize following defeat.

If people want to already start declaring the vague platitude of "just wait" as their consolation prize 3 weeks before the election, no rational argument is going to convince them otherwise ... so enjoy.

See ya in 2020 I guess. Say hello to the Tea Party in meantime.

I absolutely will wait because I want both Dems and Reps to be defeated.
They both worthless. And both Trump and Hilary are worthless 10-fold.

The same way recording artists are increasing no longer reliant on record companies to get their music out maybe one day we'll get to a point where political candidates will not need the democrat or republican apparatus to run for national office?

In a system in which we have less than 60% in eligible participation and the majority of that less-than-60% are low information voters, we will not.

A good deal of our electorate simply WANTS to choose between Democrat and republican. They want a simple, binary choice.

That isn't changing anytime soon.

Knickoftime wrote:

Welpee wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

arkrud wrote:

holfresh wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

fishmike wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Honestly, I've lost the chain of thought regarding our discussion. It has gone all over the place.
When I make a fair point or answer a question, you just jump to what is wrong with something I've said.

Perhaps it's because I dispute your point are fair, and instead of just carpet bombing the thread with unsubstantiated declarations of my personal opinion, I'm explaining why your points aren't fair.

I'm not surprised it hard to keep track, because there is no objective grounding to your "points"... all they are is again, intellectual nihilism. All you seem to believe are conspiracy-driven Youtube videos.

Time and time again, I make valid points and you just jump over them. You attack what you think is the weakest. You leave most behind.

I think logic and deduction are important and central to this debate, but when you go to the "Well, she wasn't convicted." argument, while leaving valid points behind, now you create an argument based on your standards. Again - Al Capone was only a tax evader.

And this is exactly why I make a habit of quoting every specific point I respond to, so this doesn't happen. Or at least there is no excuse for it.

I have never once responded "well, she wasn't convicted." I haven't ever implied anything like it. I haven't even engaged you in ANY discussion or retort about Hillary Clinton at all.

And this is demonstrative of the problem I've identified. Lack of an objective grounding. You're just repeating a overarching POV (rather than facts or data) in absence of any context.

And why you make a habbit of skipping over any points of relevance. Seems like the Hillary supporters often mention the "conviction" thing, if you didn't say it, no big deal.

What do you think of Hillary accepting 25 million from Saudi Arabia?
What does your heart say? Your mind is extremely clear.

See posts from Bonn and myself. Now it appears you are grasping for anything that casts doubt and shade on her. Whatever their motives they generate a massive amount of money for philanthropy. You are really whiffing here and its becoming apparent you have no interest in truth. Cmon man

Sorry bro, I forget, it's all about Donald Trump Bashing and his incorrect (and rude) use of the word Pu$$y.

What is 25 million accepted from a terrorist organization? Yeah, it would just be someone else.
And it would be another country abusing woman, homosexuals, etc.
And it is old news, not like Trumps 11 year old saying of... oh wait.

Looks like Clinton supporters are guiding things...

Curious though, what does your heart say?

Did you read my post? Hillary did NOT accept money from these countries and did NOT take one penny from them.

What money? Clintons do not need any money... they already have enough.
Not sure why this bunch of lairs has more respect that Trump bunch.
In my books they can all go hell together.
I have my own view of the world and do not want anybody or everybody to force any of theirs on me.
So I think in this respect Trump is exactly what I want to see running for president.
He is the symptom of change. Most likely he does not know it and it is not his intentions by any means.
But the change is needed badly and it will manifest itself if we want it or not.
The way the dictatorship of "political correctness" and "pretensions morality" went will not end good for the country.
We need to heal our-self from this terrible illness and this elections are very good shock therapy to start the heeling process.

Trump is for change??..What change are you referring to because a lot of his proposals are like previous republicans..Cut tax for the rich and put troops on the ground in Iraq..Scap Obamacare and war with Iran..Arrogance in the Oval offic..What change are you seeing that I'm not seeing?? Bromance with Putin??

The only thing different is he says he will bring jobs back which is impossible..That's total nonsense..Those industries are long gone..Coal is dead..

Change of the attitude is the biggest change.
Everybody are tired of lies and empty promises from both Reps and Dems.
Trump is not a solution but him being supported by 37% of voters is a sign of things to come.
Everyone with this warmed up little pony place in "the system" should start looking for real work to do.
The politicians and establishments are so irrelevant that it is not even funny.

Sorry Akrud, your math is wrong.

If Trump had 37% of support independent of baked-in Republican support, he'd win in a landslide. That vast majority of that 37% is people who would only vote Republican in any circumstance, people who are holding their nose while supporting him because they are republican zealots.

What small, single percentage of Trump-only supporters that may or may not exist are likely not sophisticated and intelligent enough to organize following defeat.

If people want to already start declaring the vague platitude of "just wait" as their consolation prize 3 weeks before the election, no rational argument is going to convince them otherwise ... so enjoy.

See ya in 2020 I guess. Say hello to the Tea Party in meantime.

I absolutely will wait because I want both Dems and Reps to be defeated.
They both worthless. And both Trump and Hilary are worthless 10-fold.

The same way recording artists are increasing no longer reliant on record companies to get their music out maybe one day we'll get to a point where political candidates will not need the democrat or republican apparatus to run for national office?

In a system in which we have less than 60% in eligible participation and the majority of that less-than-60% are low information voters, we will not.

A good deal of our electorate simply WANTS to choose between Democrat and republican. They want a simple, binary choice.

That isn't changing anytime soon.

The demographics is changing rapidly with Asian and Latin American immigrants will dominate the US future.
Millennials are also very different from what boomers generation was.
This will bring completely new cultural mix and attitude about governance structure will surely change.
We are in the beginning stages of new technological and industrial revolution which will drastically change the whole structure of the society. The world population started to shrink. The world political order and borders are falling apart.
Traditional political structures are aging and not inclusive. They are clearly not up for challenges they will soon face.
They need to change or new political parties will rise above them.
The fact that all they can extract in order to compete are Trump and Hilary reinforced the fact how irrelevant they are.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/788123233442824192

Let's see if this starts breaking, pretty big for Trump to come out and make a video about the collusioin between FBI, State Dept and Hillary. Word is getting out.

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-video-fbi-documents-hillary-clinton-2016-10?international=true&r=US&IR=T

Is it?

Here are a few questions:

1.) How was Hillary Clinton involved in this exchange?

2.) Who actually voiced the possibility of a quid pro quo? An FBI agent, or the Doj?

3.) Was any deal reached?

4.) Was asking for an email classification standard operating procedure.

5.) Was the email's classification actually changed?

Answer key:

1.) She wasn't.
2.) An FBI agent.
3.) No.
4.) Yes.
5.) No.

2) WRONG! - state dept #2 - Kennedy
4) Yes, apparently, After you realize that you are vulnerable on the classification issue, after you lied about it saying you did not send any.

Lol....you will defend them to your last breath. Good stuff. I am sure you can defend the Veritas video as well. Go for it! A good lawyer can argue any case.

You don't even understand the conspiracy theory you're propagating.

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/17/498278990/state-department-and-fbi-deny-quid-pro-quo-on-email-classification

From the ACTUAL email... the "smoking gun" actually reads (please read it yourself).

Not yet knowing the email's content, [redacted] told KENNEDY he would look into the email if KENNEDY would provide authority concerning the FBI's request to increase personnel in Iraq.

The FBI asked. The DoJ which Clinton wasn't a part of at the time didn't grant the request. The FBI didn't change the classification.

You want to investigate the FBI agent who asked... sounds like a plan.

U r Kidding right? U posted the last paragraph of the email and left out the other 75 % which shows that Kennedy initiated the conversation.

Good try.

You mean the part of my original post that acknowledged asking for email reclassifications was standard operating procedure?

I left that out?

So let me understand you. The problem as you understand it is that the DOJ asked... that's meat of the issue here?

arkrud wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Welpee wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

arkrud wrote:

holfresh wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

fishmike wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Honestly, I've lost the chain of thought regarding our discussion. It has gone all over the place.
When I make a fair point or answer a question, you just jump to what is wrong with something I've said.

Perhaps it's because I dispute your point are fair, and instead of just carpet bombing the thread with unsubstantiated declarations of my personal opinion, I'm explaining why your points aren't fair.

I'm not surprised it hard to keep track, because there is no objective grounding to your "points"... all they are is again, intellectual nihilism. All you seem to believe are conspiracy-driven Youtube videos.

Time and time again, I make valid points and you just jump over them. You attack what you think is the weakest. You leave most behind.

I think logic and deduction are important and central to this debate, but when you go to the "Well, she wasn't convicted." argument, while leaving valid points behind, now you create an argument based on your standards. Again - Al Capone was only a tax evader.

And this is exactly why I make a habit of quoting every specific point I respond to, so this doesn't happen. Or at least there is no excuse for it.

I have never once responded "well, she wasn't convicted." I haven't ever implied anything like it. I haven't even engaged you in ANY discussion or retort about Hillary Clinton at all.

And this is demonstrative of the problem I've identified. Lack of an objective grounding. You're just repeating a overarching POV (rather than facts or data) in absence of any context.

And why you make a habbit of skipping over any points of relevance. Seems like the Hillary supporters often mention the "conviction" thing, if you didn't say it, no big deal.

What do you think of Hillary accepting 25 million from Saudi Arabia?
What does your heart say? Your mind is extremely clear.

See posts from Bonn and myself. Now it appears you are grasping for anything that casts doubt and shade on her. Whatever their motives they generate a massive amount of money for philanthropy. You are really whiffing here and its becoming apparent you have no interest in truth. Cmon man

Sorry bro, I forget, it's all about Donald Trump Bashing and his incorrect (and rude) use of the word Pu$$y.

What is 25 million accepted from a terrorist organization? Yeah, it would just be someone else.
And it would be another country abusing woman, homosexuals, etc.
And it is old news, not like Trumps 11 year old saying of... oh wait.

Looks like Clinton supporters are guiding things...

Curious though, what does your heart say?

Did you read my post? Hillary did NOT accept money from these countries and did NOT take one penny from them.

What money? Clintons do not need any money... they already have enough.
Not sure why this bunch of lairs has more respect that Trump bunch.
In my books they can all go hell together.
I have my own view of the world and do not want anybody or everybody to force any of theirs on me.
So I think in this respect Trump is exactly what I want to see running for president.
He is the symptom of change. Most likely he does not know it and it is not his intentions by any means.
But the change is needed badly and it will manifest itself if we want it or not.
The way the dictatorship of "political correctness" and "pretensions morality" went will not end good for the country.
We need to heal our-self from this terrible illness and this elections are very good shock therapy to start the heeling process.

Trump is for change??..What change are you referring to because a lot of his proposals are like previous republicans..Cut tax for the rich and put troops on the ground in Iraq..Scap Obamacare and war with Iran..Arrogance in the Oval offic..What change are you seeing that I'm not seeing?? Bromance with Putin??

The only thing different is he says he will bring jobs back which is impossible..That's total nonsense..Those industries are long gone..Coal is dead..

Change of the attitude is the biggest change.
Everybody are tired of lies and empty promises from both Reps and Dems.
Trump is not a solution but him being supported by 37% of voters is a sign of things to come.
Everyone with this warmed up little pony place in "the system" should start looking for real work to do.
The politicians and establishments are so irrelevant that it is not even funny.

Sorry Akrud, your math is wrong.

If Trump had 37% of support independent of baked-in Republican support, he'd win in a landslide. That vast majority of that 37% is people who would only vote Republican in any circumstance, people who are holding their nose while supporting him because they are republican zealots.

What small, single percentage of Trump-only supporters that may or may not exist are likely not sophisticated and intelligent enough to organize following defeat.

If people want to already start declaring the vague platitude of "just wait" as their consolation prize 3 weeks before the election, no rational argument is going to convince them otherwise ... so enjoy.

See ya in 2020 I guess. Say hello to the Tea Party in meantime.

I absolutely will wait because I want both Dems and Reps to be defeated.
They both worthless. And both Trump and Hilary are worthless 10-fold.

The same way recording artists are increasing no longer reliant on record companies to get their music out maybe one day we'll get to a point where political candidates will not need the democrat or republican apparatus to run for national office?

In a system in which we have less than 60% in eligible participation and the majority of that less-than-60% are low information voters, we will not.

A good deal of our electorate simply WANTS to choose between Democrat and republican. They want a simple, binary choice.

That isn't changing anytime soon.

The demographics is changing rapidly with Asian and Latin American immigrants will dominate the US future.
Millennials are also very different from what boomers generation was.
This will bring completely new cultural mix and attitude about governance structure will surely change.
We are in the beginning stages of new technological and industrial revolution which will drastically change the whole structure of the society. The world population started to shrink. The world political order and borders are falling apart.
Traditional political structures are aging and not inclusive. They are clearly not up for challenges they will soon face.
They need to change or new political parties will rise above them.
The fact that all they can extract in order to compete are Trump and Hilary reinforced the fact how irrelevant they are.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/788123233442824192

Let's see if this starts breaking, pretty big for Trump to come out and make a video about the collusioin between FBI, State Dept and Hillary. Word is getting out.

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-video-fbi-documents-hillary-clinton-2016-10?international=true&r=US&IR=T

Is it?

Here are a few questions:

1.) How was Hillary Clinton involved in this exchange?

2.) Who actually voiced the possibility of a quid pro quo? An FBI agent, or the Doj?

3.) Was any deal reached?

4.) Was asking for an email classification standard operating procedure.

5.) Was the email's classification actually changed?

Answer key:

1.) She wasn't.
2.) An FBI agent.
3.) No.
4.) Yes.
5.) No.

2) WRONG! - state dept #2 - Kennedy
4) Yes, apparently, After you realize that you are vulnerable on the classification issue, after you lied about it saying you did not send any.

Lol....you will defend them to your last breath. Good stuff. I am sure you can defend the Veritas video as well. Go for it! A good lawyer can argue any case.

The whole email thing is a red herring. I don't care about Hillary and emails, and I don't care about Trump and his molesting women. I don't elect the president to be our moral compass. I elect the president to lead the country and solve our problems. I have yet to hear a Trump supporter explain to me how his plan to cut taxes on the rich is going to help America. Bush tried it and placated us all by given the average American a $300 check, while wealthy Americans got back millions, which is what lead us down the road to the Great Recession. So, explain how Trump's policy is any different. Also, explain Trump's economic plan. As far as I can tell, it does not go beyond cut taxes for the rich and "I can do a better job" and "I will have the best people working on it." You Trump supports blindly follow this guy and spout crap about emails, but you have no clue about the economic harm this guy is about to do to the middle class and poor in this country.

TheGame wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/788123233442824192

Let's see if this starts breaking, pretty big for Trump to come out and make a video about the collusioin between FBI, State Dept and Hillary. Word is getting out.

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-video-fbi-documents-hillary-clinton-2016-10?international=true&r=US&IR=T

Is it?

Here are a few questions:

1.) How was Hillary Clinton involved in this exchange?

2.) Who actually voiced the possibility of a quid pro quo? An FBI agent, or the Doj?

3.) Was any deal reached?

4.) Was asking for an email classification standard operating procedure.

5.) Was the email's classification actually changed?

Answer key:

1.) She wasn't.
2.) An FBI agent.
3.) No.
4.) Yes.
5.) No.

2) WRONG! - state dept #2 - Kennedy
4) Yes, apparently, After you realize that you are vulnerable on the classification issue, after you lied about it saying you did not send any.

Lol....you will defend them to your last breath. Good stuff. I am sure you can defend the Veritas video as well. Go for it! A good lawyer can argue any case.

The whole email thing is a red herring. I don't care about Hillary and emails, and I don't care about Trump and his molesting women. I don't elect the president to be our moral compass. I elect the president to lead the country and solve our problems. I have yet to hear a Trump supporter explain to me how his plan to cut taxes on the rich is going to help America. Bush tried it and placated us all by given the average American a $300 check, while wealthy Americans got back millions, which is what lead us down the road to the Great Recession. So, explain how Trump's policy is any different. Also, explain Trump's economic plan. As far as I can tell, it does not go beyond cut taxes for the rich and "I can do a better job" and "I will have the best people working on it." You Trump supports blindly follow this guy and spout crap about emails, but you have no clue about the economic harm this guy is about to do to the middle class and poor in this country.

I do appreciate you bringing up actual issues that should be discussed.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote: (added) It just happeend to be about a Benghai related email right?

That is correct. It was.