BRIGGS wrote:

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.

I defend your opinion as well as Colin's. When the conversation leans towards what you think/feel instead of learning then its about "Me".
A few months ago I read a story of a well to do attorney whose kids have been harassed by frat boys. Harmless, but scarey stuff. Not terrible but when his kids were out running an errand in Mom's BMW SUV cops pulled them over and were ruff with them. Imagine having to tell your kids what to do when the police pull you over for no reason and not get shot.

You know, I don't know how that feels, but the more I read about this the more I can imagine this.

So basically this black attorney has spend years in college, has taken an oath, did public service, pays big taxes, has succeeded and because he is black he is harassed. His children go to better schools and are harassed for being black.

How many uncomfortable stories about US military service man who are black only to return to the country and be treated like sub citizen? Gay. Transgender. Women. Its getting better, but today Trump says "Problem with rape in the military is there are women.....". And this is your guy?

ANd your problem is Colin sits? Im not calling you a racist as I don't know you, but you promote trump as your "feel" he would do a good job. Nothing in his background promotes this in my opinion.

Kudo's to Kaepernick. Kudo's to military that has defended his rights. Maybe we don't all agree with his action, but I defend his right to it.

SEP 14 2016, 2:43 AM ET
Rising Incomes Lend Optimism to Bleak Perceptions of U.S. Economy
by AMANDA SAKUMA

The results are in: the United States economy is bouncing back.

A report released by the Census Bureau Tuesday found that Americans of all stripes — the super wealthy, middle class and poor — saw incomes rise last year. Growth came at the fastest annual rate seen in decades.

The head of President Obama's economic team was so gleeful with the findings that he trumpeted the report as "unambiguously the best" ever.

But would all Americans agree?

Nearly nine years after a devastating recession took hold of the country, many Americans still hold broadly bleak views toward the economy.

Tuesday's report showed the first real increase in household wages since 2007 — and it may be premature to expect a single strong economic report to suddenly turn years pessimism around.

But that disconnect between the dramatic gains and the public's perception has been central to Republican presidential nominee' Donald Trump's approach, capitalizing on lingering economic anxiety. The government may say the economy is getting better, but Americans aren't feeling it yet.

The unemployment rate was steadily dropping throughout the primary election, and so Trump instead frequently pointed to another statistic, stagnant household incomes, as the true indicator of economic health.

"Household incomes are down more than $4,000 since the year 2000. That's 16 years ago," Trump said during the Republican National Convention in July.

Trump was right, at the time. And though the latest Census report now makes clear that the median household income grew by 5.2 percent from 2014 (adjusted for inflation, it comes to $56,516) incomes are still below times of the economic boon of the late 1990s.

And crucial to Trump's causes, rural residents, who are more likely to be the Republican candidate's supporters, were the only sub-category of Americans who did not see incomes rise in 2015.

Still, Justin Wolfers, a professor of economics at the University of Michigan, says Trump's gloom and doom depiction of the economy doesn't match the current realities of the recovery.

"There was a period of great economic anxiety. That moment has passed," Wolfers said."For sure there are frustrations in the middle class, but it doesn't seem like the right moment to be pushing that message."

A crucial takeaway from the report was that economic gains were not isolated to the mega rich. In fact poor Americans, those at the bottom 10th percentile of the income scale, saw the strongest gains, with 7.9 percent growth over the last year.

"The rising tide lifts all boats," Wolfers said. "The income gains were large and they were broadly based. The recovery is finally yielding fruit for the middle and working classes."

There is already a disparity between the types of Americans more likely to view economic conditions as a glass half full, rather than empty.

Latinos, for example, earn on average $11,000 less than the general American public. Their wealth is nearly six times less than that of all other households. They are nearly twice as likely to live in poverty. And yet for Latinos, their outlook on their personal finances are on the rise, and their optimism for their economic future is far greater than the rest.

The paradox, found from a survey released by the Pew Research Center in June, showed the inverse of economic anxiety, a common trend seen with many immigrant groups that tend to look on the bride side of their economic prospects.

"Favored groups are not favored as much as they used to be, so they feel threatened," Barry Bosworth, an economist with the Brookings Institute. "White, middle-class Americans are much more upset about the trends."

GoNyGoNyGo wrote: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.

So we have 2 conflated themes going on here and you have glossed over a ton of complexity and ended with "I am not that entrenched"

I also am not that well versed in both the background and logistics of Benghazi, Syria, Arab Spring and all of the entanglements of the Middle East and the USA involvement, it's a deep web. I can't find much that helps in sorting out the characters, please help me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html

Also, the funding of the consulate is a completely separate and has been fairly thoroughly investigated and there was no found link to Hilary and the denial of support. If you have information that states otherwise, please share it will us. There have been investigation after investigation about both the communications and funding and military reaction to the Benghazi attach that shows your above to be not correct.

Please help me with some more details on Benghazi, Syria and Hilary involvement and how this is a scandal for her rather than the inner workings of a very complex international situation involving a ton of years (pre Obama) and a ton of heads of states, nations etc.

BRIGGS wrote:

Nalod wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

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.

I defend your opinion as well as Colin's. When the conversation leans towards what you think/feel instead of learning then its about "Me".
A few months ago I read a story of a well to do attorney whose kids have been harassed by frat boys. Harmless, but scarey stuff. Not terrible but when his kids were out running an errand in Mom's BMW SUV cops pulled them over and were ruff with them. Imagine having to tell your kids what to do when the police pull you over for no reason and not get shot.

You know, I don't know how that feels, but the more I read about this the more I can imagine this.

So basically this black attorney has spend years in college, has taken an oath, did public service, pays big taxes, has succeeded and because he is black he is harassed. His children go to better schools and are harassed for being black.

How many uncomfortable stories about US military service man who are black only to return to the country and be treated like sub citizen? Gay. Transgender. Women. Its getting better, but today Trump says "Problem with rape in the military is there are women.....". And this is your guy?

ANd your problem is Colin sits? Im not calling you a racist as I don't know you, but you promote trump as your "feel" he would do a good job. Nothing in his background promotes this in my opinion.

Kudo's to Kaepernick. Kudo's to military that has defended his rights. Maybe we don't all agree with his action, but I defend his right to it.

Three years ago a police officer in Clinton CT made my daughter and wife cry over an expired emissions. Made them get out of the car on a 90 degree heat--wouldnt let them drive the car home and was terse with them. I complained but I was talking to the wall. Thats not the same experience as severe violence but it wasnt something that made me feel tingly inside. There is room for improvement by the police--I agree 100%. But there are places and times do do that--the National Anthem is not one of them--it may actually(more likely) have a negative effect.

Again, "Me"...........
They cried. Hey, Im sure it was frustrating and humiliating! It was over the cop being a dick about "emissions". Not the color of her hair, skin or the way she talked.
Now, imagine if it was you, and I know you have some physical problems, and despite that, made you get on the ground. if you protested, they slammed you down and got real scary. The more indignant you got over the boil of being violated, the more your "resisting" and even more force is justified. You have money, hire a lawyer and perhaps get some justice. Not if you black and don't have money.

So your wife and daughter were driving a nice car, or a classic car and got pulled. You tried to complain but to no avail. That is the tip of the iceberg. You didn't even scratch the surface!
So imagine you daughter was searched for the Emissions being invalid because the officer suspected she was high because she has allergies and red eyes. Maybe found some weed she had forgotten about. She is arrested. Perhaps because she is smart, has high self esteem and feels like treated unfair she protests and the officer cracks her to subdued her and she now has an injury, not life threatening but now she can't get that field hockey scholarship she was gunning for. Or has a slight concussion and blows an exam at school. Now her life's trajectory has changed. Not terrible because she has other good options, but if she was black, her single mother does not have money to keep the car in total repair, was a bit tired from working a physical job, instead of crying from humiliation instead argued over the injustice of racial profiling and a lifetime of predudice, and protested, she gets arrested, loses her job, and the daughter who had a bit of weed lost her ticket to college and out of the circle of poverty.
Yeah, this is the conversation briggs. Again, instead of listening your talking.

Its not a conversation about "well, if pulled "They" should not protest, or have weed, or make a mistake. Take a sliver of the humiliation of why your wife and daughter cried and then amplify it to the point you can just imagine the indignation.

Maybe not enough change your mind about how a football player is taking a knee, but enough to understand the issue is not about his disrespect. I will stand and pay respect for others but quite frankly I find the whole practice a bit disingenuous and have for years.
When I read this months ago, I finally understood.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-pentagon-pays-the-nfl-millions-to-honor-veterans-at-games-2015-5

Budweiser sells beer this way.

and Trumps campaign is mostly about "America First" in the similar concept.

Patriotism is not about "America Fist". TO me, its about loving your country enough to uphold the constitution and doing what's right even if you don't always agree with it.
I will vote for Hilary not with great enthusiasm, but I understand her to uphold the constitution with greater dignity than Trump.
Party affiliation over country? "Deplorable".
Im not saying your in the "Basket" with the worst of them. Hilary did say "Half". The other half is better than that. I suspect you are too.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

holfresh wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

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.

France and Sarkozy were the ones who wanted to get rid of Gaddafi. They then asked for help from the US..Obama was reluctant but then agreed with Clinton's insistence..It was a US drone strike that took out Gadaffi if reports are to be believed...The republicans then pounced on Obama saying he is leading from behind for not leading the charge against Gaddafi..Let's keep the facts in line...

"What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?", who wanted Gaddafi out? the US did it. She wanted to do it. Yes, there was oil and gold involved....I am sure the parties involved profited.

Khaddaffi, a real good guy? We rang his bell once before.

Welpee 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.

Meanwhile, Trump with far less scrutiny is wrapped up in just as many scandals as Clinton. When people play the corruption card what makes them think Trump is going to be less corrupt? His history certainly doesn't suggest it.

Just as many? Hilary is a power broker who like many before her has exercised her power. Trump is a two bit con man embroiled in dozens of missteps.

Welpee 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.

Meanwhile, Trump with far less scrutiny is wrapped up in just as many scandals as Clinton. When people play the corruption card what makes them think Trump is going to be less corrupt? His history certainly doesn't suggest it.

I think the scrutiny of Trump is about to avalanche.

Last night his spokeswoman was asked on CNN about the IRS investigation into his taxes, the IRS audit. She was asked if Trump would provide the documentation that he indeed is being audited. The IRS always provides a statement of confirmation that you are being audited, I hope the media forces him to produce this documentation (the IRS cannot otherwise confirm/deny an audit, they only send out the paperwork). This will be another tip of the iceberg.

Nalod wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Nalod wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

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.

I defend your opinion as well as Colin's. When the conversation leans towards what you think/feel instead of learning then its about "Me".
A few months ago I read a story of a well to do attorney whose kids have been harassed by frat boys. Harmless, but scarey stuff. Not terrible but when his kids were out running an errand in Mom's BMW SUV cops pulled them over and were ruff with them. Imagine having to tell your kids what to do when the police pull you over for no reason and not get shot.

You know, I don't know how that feels, but the more I read about this the more I can imagine this.

So basically this black attorney has spend years in college, has taken an oath, did public service, pays big taxes, has succeeded and because he is black he is harassed. His children go to better schools and are harassed for being black.

How many uncomfortable stories about US military service man who are black only to return to the country and be treated like sub citizen? Gay. Transgender. Women. Its getting better, but today Trump says "Problem with rape in the military is there are women.....". And this is your guy?

ANd your problem is Colin sits? Im not calling you a racist as I don't know you, but you promote trump as your "feel" he would do a good job. Nothing in his background promotes this in my opinion.

Kudo's to Kaepernick. Kudo's to military that has defended his rights. Maybe we don't all agree with his action, but I defend his right to it.

Three years ago a police officer in Clinton CT made my daughter and wife cry over an expired emissions. Made them get out of the car on a 90 degree heat--wouldnt let them drive the car home and was terse with them. I complained but I was talking to the wall. Thats not the same experience as severe violence but it wasnt something that made me feel tingly inside. There is room for improvement by the police--I agree 100%. But there are places and times do do that--the National Anthem is not one of them--it may actually(more likely) have a negative effect.

Again, "Me"...........
They cried. Hey, Im sure it was frustrating and humiliating! It was over the cop being a dick about "emissions". Not the color of her hair, skin or the way she talked.
Now, imagine if it was you, and I know you have some physical problems, and despite that, made you get on the ground. if you protested, they slammed you down and got real scary. The more indignant you got over the boil of being violated, the more your "resisting" and even more force is justified. You have money, hire a lawyer and perhaps get some justice. Not if you black and don't have money.

So your wife and daughter were driving a nice car, or a classic car and got pulled. You tried to complain but to no avail. That is the tip of the iceberg. You didn't even scratch the surface!
So imagine you daughter was searched for the Emissions being invalid because the officer suspected she was high because she has allergies and red eyes. Maybe found some weed she had forgotten about. She is arrested. Perhaps because she is smart, has high self esteem and feels like treated unfair she protests and the officer cracks her to subdued her and she now has an injury, not life threatening but now she can't get that field hockey scholarship she was gunning for. Or has a slight concussion and blows an exam at school. Now her life's trajectory has changed. Not terrible because she has other good options, but if she was black, her single mother does not have money to keep the car in total repair, was a bit tired from working a physical job, instead of crying from humiliation instead argued over the injustice of racial profiling and a lifetime of predudice, and protested, she gets arrested, loses her job, and the daughter who had a bit of weed lost her ticket to college and out of the circle of poverty.
Yeah, this is the conversation briggs. Again, instead of listening your talking.

Its not a conversation about "well, if pulled "They" should not protest, or have weed, or make a mistake. Take a sliver of the humiliation of why your wife and daughter cried and then amplify it to the point you can just imagine the indignation.

Maybe not enough change your mind about how a football player is taking a knee, but enough to understand the issue is not about his disrespect. I will stand and pay respect for others but quite frankly I find the whole practice a bit disingenuous and have for years.
When I read this months ago, I finally understood.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-pentagon-pays-the-nfl-millions-to-honor-veterans-at-games-2015-5

Budweiser sells beer this way.

and Trumps campaign is mostly about "America First" in the similar concept.

Patriotism is not about "America Fist". TO me, its about loving your country enough to uphold the constitution and doing what's right even if you don't always agree with it.
I will vote for Hilary not with great enthusiasm, but I understand her to uphold the constitution with greater dignity than Trump.
Party affiliation over country? "Deplorable".
Im not saying your in the "Basket" with the worst of them. Hilary did say "Half". The other half is better than that. I suspect you are too.

Nalod--there is room for improvement with the police. If you are white--do you really feel that safe if a policeman pulls you over? Who the heck knows what will happen---minorities dont monopolize crappy treatment from the police. He has the gun we dont. But reading a lot of stories out there I feel minorities lump "white people" in with police and that is far far far from accurate. I respect the police I know its not a cake job but they need to improve.

When you protest something--you need to pick an avenue that makes sense. Colin is making millions of people mad--thats not the avenue he wants. And where was he 1-2-3-4 years ago with his sentiments? He has a twitter account and celebrity--he has a voice. Civilian related police deaths are in the hundreds military deaths are in the millions.

holfresh wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

holfresh wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

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.

France and Sarkozy were the ones who wanted to get rid of Gaddafi. They then asked for help from the US..Obama was reluctant but then agreed with Clinton's insistence..It was a US drone strike that took out Gadaffi if reports are to be believed...The republicans then pounced on Obama saying he is leading from behind for not leading the charge against Gaddafi..Let's keep the facts in line...

"What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?", who wanted Gaddafi out? the US did it. She wanted to do it. Yes, there was oil and gold involved....I am sure the parties involved profited.

The difference it makes is poking holes in your argument that is not based on facts...The US didn't do it, there were many nations leading air strikes ahead of the US involvement....There was a UN resolution following that...There was a civil war before all this happened...You guys can't have it both ways..

Not really. The US involvement was necessary to remove him. Sidney Blumenthal (a non US official) and HRC were heavily involved in what was going on (re: Gold, OIl, $$) She spear headed US involvement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html

Nalod wrote:

Welpee 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.

Meanwhile, Trump with far less scrutiny is wrapped up in just as many scandals as Clinton. When people play the corruption card what makes them think Trump is going to be less corrupt? His history certainly doesn't suggest it.

Just as many? Hilary is a power broker who like many before her has exercised her power. Trump is a two bit con man embroiled in dozens of missteps.

holfresh wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

holfresh wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

holfresh wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

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.

France and Sarkozy were the ones who wanted to get rid of Gaddafi. They then asked for help from the US..Obama was reluctant but then agreed with Clinton's insistence..It was a US drone strike that took out Gadaffi if reports are to be believed...The republicans then pounced on Obama saying he is leading from behind for not leading the charge against Gaddafi..Let's keep the facts in line...

"What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?", who wanted Gaddafi out? the US did it. She wanted to do it. Yes, there was oil and gold involved....I am sure the parties involved profited.

The difference it makes is poking holes in your argument that is not based on facts...The US didn't do it, there were many nations leading air strikes ahead of the US involvement....There was a UN resolution following that...There was a civil war before all this happened...You guys can't have it both ways..

Not really. The US involvement was necessary to remove him. Sidney Blumenthal (a non US official) and HRC were heavily involved in what was going on (re: Gold, OIl, $$) She spear headed US involvement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html

Did you read the article you posted and saw who was there ahead of the US..The Arab League also asked the US to get involved..It was Hillary's job to spearhead US involvement..That is what Secretary of States do...

You should read it because you might also grasp how much of a hotbed Benghazi was and it was no place for a highly prized US official to be...

Really? I made the point that the US was needed to get him out. The point is that there was an ulterior motive that HRC and Blumenthal and Sakorzy were in for. Not just to get rid of a ruler but to get the oil, gold, $$ and turn into an experiment.

No place for an official? why did she leave them there? what were they doing?