gunsnewing wrote:Since both these candidates are equally despised I wonder how many people will voluntarily leave the country after November 8

If Trump wins, Americans will go to Mexico and help build the wall LOL

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

martin wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

martin wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

martin wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

martin wrote:so Newsweek is stepping up. Haven't read the articles but they should be interesting.

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/donald-trump-foreign-business-deals-national-security-498081.html

Both articles are troubling. Missing emails that were requested for an investigation should be turned over. IF not, there should be prosecution.

Trump's interests are also deep and involved. If you are concerned about them as you should be, is there an equal concern about the Clinton Foundation and the possible ramifications that could have on HRC winning?

I will say it again. We, the People have allowed this to occur. We nominate and elect these crooks. Politician should not be a career choice. IT was never meant to be.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

There is absolutely concern. There have been investigations looking into those concerns and yet nothing has really popped.

There should be concerns with SuperPACs THAT INVOLVE EVERY SINGLE HIGH LEVEL politician. SuperPACs, as far as I can tell, are exactly the same type of vehicle as a charity except for the exact purpose a charity described above should NOT be doing.... funneling money to a government official for bought influence. Those are vehicles for companies AND foreign nationals via companies to buy influence.

We have companies that donate to politicians, politicians turn around and ASK those donors to literally write laws/legislation for them. We understand this, right? The oil companies donate directly to Senate and Congress members or via SuperPACs and then literally write legislation for those Senate and Congressional members. We have this base line understanding right? That is direct pay for play that happens all the time, commonly accepted pay for play. No outrage. Climate deniers, NRA members. Those are paid for.

BUT, Clinton is associated with a charity that we have found no wrongdoing and.... and what?

Not sure about that, but we will see.

I can't argue with the rest that you have written. Only it is both sides of every argument out there that is dirtying the waters. Nothing is sacred. How we get the genie back in the bottle, I don't know but until it happens, this is why we get HRC vs DJT

GoNyGoNyGo, this is VERY easy. If you are not sure the Clinton Foundation has done no wrongdoing, then produce something that justifies your concern. CF has been around for a very long time and has been investigated and looked at. Show us something that meets YOUR level of concern.

"2 weeks ago, emails were leaked e-mails began dribbling out showing foundation officials contacting State Department counterparts to ask favors for foundation “friends.” Say, a meeting with the State Department’s “substance person” on Lebanon for one particularly generous Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire. Big deal, said the Clinton defenders. Low-level stuff. No involvement of the secretary herself. Until — drip, drip — the next batch revealed foundation requests for face time with the secretary herself. Such as one from the crown prince of Bahrain. To be sure, Bahrain, home of the Fifth Fleet, is an important Persian Gulf ally. Its crown prince shouldn’t have to go through a foundation — to which his government donated at least $50,000 — to get to the secretary. The fact that he did is telling. A further drip: The Associated Press found that over half the private interests who were granted phone or personal contact with Secretary Clinton — 85 of 154 — were donors to the foundation. Total contributions? As much as $156 million. Current Clinton response? There was no quid pro quo."

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439376/hillary-clinton-corruption-clinton-foundation-email-scandals-are-connected
another source...i know you wont like them but they are the first ones that came up...

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/273930-documents-show-coordination-between-state-clinton

Know your sources. The first link was written by Charles Krauthammer, that should stop you dead in your tracks from reading the article further.

Why? Are his facts wrong. Dispute the facts not the messenger. Can I then question the Newsweek sources as being equally biased the other way?

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:If you watched CNN at 1 today the former CIA director said that Hillary Clinton was the worst cabinet member in multiple decades. So bad that he joined Trump's campaign last week. This was a guy pulling no punches or without bias--he basically said she would be brutal for the US.

She has a horrid record of lying and look at how many former retired military and CIA are going to Trump. People in the know dont like Hillary.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I get my facts from Fox, that's the only line that I find funnier.

Dude, again, you watch TV and provide zero context.

Don't worry about the news channel, as long as the people giving their opinions are trustworthy.
Disregarding the word of military and CIA people because of the station they appeared on is basically an Ad Hominen attack, with a bit of Appealing to the popular.

Did it ever cross your mind that ex CIA and Military officials are going for Trump because they don't want more deaths (home and abroad.)
The emails made it clear - Hillary is a War Hawk.
These military guys know Hillary first hand and the last thing they want is a gun happy president.

That's ok. Soon the retired CIA & Military executives who are now supporting Trump will also be accused of being racists

Nalod wrote:Hilary is competent, but Arrogant.
Trump is not fit to be president and lacks dignity. I see a man willing to not to stand on principles but do anything to win the office. Say anything, insult anyone, and be what ever he needs to be to win votes. The lack of substance in him is disturbing. His businesses are littered with fraud, his children are not all they are built to be, his wife's stories are highly questioned, he won't reveal his taxes, he has ties to russian money, his businesses are littered with failures, casino's, water, steaks, and the university. His TV show was a hit. It was TV. He has bailed on two marriages, and has exaggerated on about EVERYTHING!!!!

As for Hilary, she is arrogant Attorney with a history of public service, was first lady for 8 years, 6 years senator from NY and Secretary of State. The clinton foundation is set to help people and as a trust defer taxes. Income form the trust is taxable. They also help people. She does not have a perfect record as secretary and bungled her Emails, but so has Ms. Rice and Colin Powell. She has done nothing illegal. She is vilified in part for being a women. That is my opinion.

Briggs, your clutching at concepts in hope the candidate of your party fulfills your wish. Concepts and wishful thinking is not how we should be vetting our candidates. Take Hilary out of the equation for a second and look at Trump singularly and its not pretty.
My choice is who will uphold the constitution with greater competence. With a lack of enthusiasm, I will vote for Hilary.

Welpee wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Since both these candidates are equally despised I wonder how many people will voluntarily leave the country after November 8

Nobody. If you believe in this country people should know we're stronger than any president no matter how bad he/she is. As bad as Hillary is and as horrible as Trump is, look at our history of presidents and you'll find folks way worse than they are. And somehow we managed to survive.

Yea that's probably true. Hard to tell from the comments here from both sides though.

Personally I truly feel Hillary has the potential to go down in history as the worst. Who will she be competing with for that title? I guess Nixon, Carter, GWB?

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

martin wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

martin wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

martin wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

martin wrote:so Newsweek is stepping up. Haven't read the articles but they should be interesting.

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/donald-trump-foreign-business-deals-national-security-498081.html

Both articles are troubling. Missing emails that were requested for an investigation should be turned over. IF not, there should be prosecution.

Trump's interests are also deep and involved. If you are concerned about them as you should be, is there an equal concern about the Clinton Foundation and the possible ramifications that could have on HRC winning?

I will say it again. We, the People have allowed this to occur. We nominate and elect these crooks. Politician should not be a career choice. IT was never meant to be.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

There is absolutely concern. There have been investigations looking into those concerns and yet nothing has really popped.

There should be concerns with SuperPACs THAT INVOLVE EVERY SINGLE HIGH LEVEL politician. SuperPACs, as far as I can tell, are exactly the same type of vehicle as a charity except for the exact purpose a charity described above should NOT be doing.... funneling money to a government official for bought influence. Those are vehicles for companies AND foreign nationals via companies to buy influence.

We have companies that donate to politicians, politicians turn around and ASK those donors to literally write laws/legislation for them. We understand this, right? The oil companies donate directly to Senate and Congress members or via SuperPACs and then literally write legislation for those Senate and Congressional members. We have this base line understanding right? That is direct pay for play that happens all the time, commonly accepted pay for play. No outrage. Climate deniers, NRA members. Those are paid for.

BUT, Clinton is associated with a charity that we have found no wrongdoing and.... and what?

Not sure about that, but we will see.

I can't argue with the rest that you have written. Only it is both sides of every argument out there that is dirtying the waters. Nothing is sacred. How we get the genie back in the bottle, I don't know but until it happens, this is why we get HRC vs DJT

GoNyGoNyGo, this is VERY easy. If you are not sure the Clinton Foundation has done no wrongdoing, then produce something that justifies your concern. CF has been around for a very long time and has been investigated and looked at. Show us something that meets YOUR level of concern.

"2 weeks ago, emails were leaked e-mails began dribbling out showing foundation officials contacting State Department counterparts to ask favors for foundation “friends.” Say, a meeting with the State Department’s “substance person” on Lebanon for one particularly generous Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire. Big deal, said the Clinton defenders. Low-level stuff. No involvement of the secretary herself. Until — drip, drip — the next batch revealed foundation requests for face time with the secretary herself. Such as one from the crown prince of Bahrain. To be sure, Bahrain, home of the Fifth Fleet, is an important Persian Gulf ally. Its crown prince shouldn’t have to go through a foundation — to which his government donated at least $50,000 — to get to the secretary. The fact that he did is telling. A further drip: The Associated Press found that over half the private interests who were granted phone or personal contact with Secretary Clinton — 85 of 154 — were donors to the foundation. Total contributions? As much as $156 million. Current Clinton response? There was no quid pro quo."

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439376/hillary-clinton-corruption-clinton-foundation-email-scandals-are-connected
another source...i know you wont like them but they are the first ones that came up...

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/273930-documents-show-coordination-between-state-clinton

Know your sources. The first link was written by Charles Krauthammer, that should stop you dead in your tracks from reading the article further.

Why? Are his facts wrong. Dispute the facts not the messenger. Can I then question the Newsweek sources as being equally biased the other way?

I'd normally agree with you but Charles Krauthamme is a very well known conservative hack.

martin wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

martin wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

martin wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

martin wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

martin wrote:so Newsweek is stepping up. Haven't read the articles but they should be interesting.

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/donald-trump-foreign-business-deals-national-security-498081.html

Both articles are troubling. Missing emails that were requested for an investigation should be turned over. IF not, there should be prosecution.

Trump's interests are also deep and involved. If you are concerned about them as you should be, is there an equal concern about the Clinton Foundation and the possible ramifications that could have on HRC winning?

I will say it again. We, the People have allowed this to occur. We nominate and elect these crooks. Politician should not be a career choice. IT was never meant to be.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

There is absolutely concern. There have been investigations looking into those concerns and yet nothing has really popped.

There should be concerns with SuperPACs THAT INVOLVE EVERY SINGLE HIGH LEVEL politician. SuperPACs, as far as I can tell, are exactly the same type of vehicle as a charity except for the exact purpose a charity described above should NOT be doing.... funneling money to a government official for bought influence. Those are vehicles for companies AND foreign nationals via companies to buy influence.

We have companies that donate to politicians, politicians turn around and ASK those donors to literally write laws/legislation for them. We understand this, right? The oil companies donate directly to Senate and Congress members or via SuperPACs and then literally write legislation for those Senate and Congressional members. We have this base line understanding right? That is direct pay for play that happens all the time, commonly accepted pay for play. No outrage. Climate deniers, NRA members. Those are paid for.

BUT, Clinton is associated with a charity that we have found no wrongdoing and.... and what?

Not sure about that, but we will see.

I can't argue with the rest that you have written. Only it is both sides of every argument out there that is dirtying the waters. Nothing is sacred. How we get the genie back in the bottle, I don't know but until it happens, this is why we get HRC vs DJT

GoNyGoNyGo, this is VERY easy. If you are not sure the Clinton Foundation has done no wrongdoing, then produce something that justifies your concern. CF has been around for a very long time and has been investigated and looked at. Show us something that meets YOUR level of concern.

"2 weeks ago, emails were leaked e-mails began dribbling out showing foundation officials contacting State Department counterparts to ask favors for foundation “friends.” Say, a meeting with the State Department’s “substance person” on Lebanon for one particularly generous Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire. Big deal, said the Clinton defenders. Low-level stuff. No involvement of the secretary herself. Until — drip, drip — the next batch revealed foundation requests for face time with the secretary herself. Such as one from the crown prince of Bahrain. To be sure, Bahrain, home of the Fifth Fleet, is an important Persian Gulf ally. Its crown prince shouldn’t have to go through a foundation — to which his government donated at least $50,000 — to get to the secretary. The fact that he did is telling. A further drip: The Associated Press found that over half the private interests who were granted phone or personal contact with Secretary Clinton — 85 of 154 — were donors to the foundation. Total contributions? As much as $156 million. Current Clinton response? There was no quid pro quo."

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439376/hillary-clinton-corruption-clinton-foundation-email-scandals-are-connected
another source...i know you wont like them but they are the first ones that came up...

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/273930-documents-show-coordination-between-state-clinton

Know your sources. The first link was written by Charles Krauthammer, that should stop you dead in your tracks from reading the article further.

Why? Are his facts wrong. Dispute the facts not the messenger. Can I then question the Newsweek sources as being equally biased the other way?

I'd normally agree with you but Charles Krauthamme is a very well known conservative hack.

Fine - but be prepared to have some of your sources similarly out of hand dismissed.

The emails supporting him are out there.

from CNN http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/hillary-clinton-cgi-cheryl-mills/ - she is doing what HRC wants her to do. This is even after HRC signed an agreement before being SOS that she would not mix CF business with SOS duties.

markvmc wrote:I don't plan to vote for either candidate, but this notion that Hillary is less honest than Trump is simply not borne out by the facts. Check their records on Politifact, a Pulitzer prize winning website:

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/