GoNyGoNyGo wrote:I think there have been countless of scandals involving HRC, in which it has been shown she has been less than truthful. You can accept it or not. They are counting on you to not accept it.

I think that Hilary has been scrutinized more than any other position because of her relationship to Bill by about a factor of 1000 than anyone else, and that standard has gone waaaaayyyyy over the top.

She has been less than truthful and the grey area details are also very complicated.

What scandal has Hilary instigated or been involved with that has put you off and what did she do wrong? For some reason I think that list will be a lot short than expected. And I'm not talking about the Bill crap, the ones she is the primary.

Bonn1997 wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Nalod wrote:I vote for Hilary over trump even if she is on Chemo, one lung and in a coma.

what about if hillary can be replaced with someone else (biden?) who you can vote for? What if in 2 weeks we find out that hillary is too unhealthy to run and just drops out?

Another poster pointed out earlier you can't change the state ballots this late.

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/09/if-hillary-had-to-leave-the-ticket-this-is-how-a-n.html

The bottom line is that if Clinton dropped out before September ends, with plenty of time before the general election, all indications are that the DNC could anoint the candidate of its choice—again, likely Kaine, Biden, or Sanders—and make the late substitution with only the slim possibility of extreme GOP legal obstructionism getting in the way. After September, it would be a huge mess that would increase American political self-loathing by 300 percent.

So, there’s your answer—now let’s hope Clinton returns to the campaign trail later this week in good health, and this is all a moot point.

OK, that's good to know

Yep, I was just about to post a similar article since I was the one who posted that it's too late. It's too late for a newcomer to enter the election but the GOP and/or Dem's can annoint a new candidate if their elected nominee has to drop out.

Wait, now I'm confused. So if Biden was the new nominee, would his name or Hillary's appear on the ballots?

If Hillary were to voluntarily drop out or become too sick or die, the DNC would have the power to take her off the ballot and place whoever they want onto it. She wouldn't appear at all.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:I think there have been countless of scandals involving HRC, in which it has been shown she has been less than truthful. You can accept it or not. They are counting on you to not accept it.

And not for nothing but Trump bald faces lies over and over and over directly to us every day. Not even a controversy or grey area or a "less than truthful" doubt. And he is the FURTHEST thing from transparent, and this is in relation to Hilary who does keep a closed lid on things.

martin wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:I think there have been countless of scandals involving HRC, in which it has been shown she has been less than truthful. You can accept it or not. They are counting on you to not accept it.

And not for nothing but Trump bald faces lies over and over and over directly to us every day. Not even a controversy or grey area or a "less than truthful" doubt. And he is the FURTHEST thing from transparent, and this is in relation to Hilary who does keep a closed lid on things.

And I do not support her.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/jasuja/status/775369483582050304

Nalod wrote:Lame street with those pesky fact checkers!!!
Better to rely on alternative with conspiracy to fill in the blanks?

Lame street because they fed into the email narrative and not ask the tough questions that should be at the forefront of this election...They should have been pressing Trump on specifics and how he will pay for things...Bernie for that matter too...They should be pressing Trump for more disclosure on his taxes..They have to be forced to ask the questions that should matter...

Matt Lauer was the perfect example..He spent a third of his time quizzing Hillary on emails...And fact check, who fact checks??

martin wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

martin wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:I think there have been countless of scandals involving HRC, in which it has been shown she has been less than truthful. You can accept it or not. They are counting on you to not accept it.

I think that Hilary has been scrutinized more than any other position because of her relationship to Bill by about a factor of 1000 than anyone else, and that standard has gone waaaaayyyyy over the top.

She has been less than truthful and the grey area details are also very complicated.

What scandal has Hilary instigated or been involved with that has put you off and what did she do wrong? For some reason I think that list will be a lot short than expected. And I'm not talking about the Bill crap, the ones she is the primary.

The recent scandals, Benghazi and mishandling of classified material. Her own server? The guy took the 5th today! Filegate, travelgate,fostergate, and finally when she made 100,000 in commodities without ever knowing how to do it. All plausible on the surface.

Scrutiny comes to those who invite it.

so again, let's take these in context one by one.

What is the Benghazi scandal and what did she do wrong?

Benghazi was a cover for running guns to Syria for the rebels (Isis) fighting Assad. The whole idea of getting rid of Qaddafi was hers and the Obama Administration. She deleted emails in relation to What happened there. When the consulate was under attack, there was no support. She ignored emails from the ambassador to provide more security. As SoS she was responsible.

I am sure I am missing a few as I am not THAT entrenched in the details.

As for Trump, you may be right. But once again, his deficiencies in NO WAY lessen hers. If you want to argue she does not have any that is fine but to say she is good because he is bad too, doesn't really wash. I am not trying to defend Trump. I am sure he has done lots that we don't know that could be shown to be bad things. He absolutely ALSO changes his story to fit the narrative. One difference, so far, is that unlike HRC, he is discussing policy and ideas. She is doing it while under criminal investigation.

I am sure if there is something there against Trump it will be brought to light. Trump U? Trump Foundation? Trump hiring practices? Trump selective selection of tenants...to name a few.

To be in this situation to have these two candidates is as bad as it gets. It really is troubling.

Nalod wrote:
Players use their fame to promote products. Colin is promoting a conversation. I defend freedom of speech even if its not a comfortable conversation.

I tend to think the National Anthem stands for the people from the 1700-through the Iraq war who have died making this a country. If it werent for those people none of us would be here. It's showing respect and pride for those people who came before us--its all about pure respect. Colin is a pro athlete--he has different avenues to express his opinion. By pirsing people off--it doesnt further his cause.

By the way
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-08/breakdown-us-citizens-killed-cops-2016

There was twice as many white people killed by police --more than Latino and African American combined this year. Im a believer that the police need to take a step up and try not to use deadly force if at all possible to ANY race. I can stand for people who want police to tone it down--Id walk right next to that--but Im certainly not doing it during the National Anthem--that isnt about the police. Colin is a role model all of those guys are whether they like it or not--comes with the job. Be respectful of those who came before us to afford a better way of life--thats what the National anthem is.