No Charges For Hillary - Let the Conservative Outrage Reign Down

1. 86

   Valeantposted 7 years ago

   Well, the FBI has recommended no criminal charges.  She was stupid and made the information vulnerable, but didn't have the intent to disperse classified.  That's the big distinction I guess.  Either way, this whole saga undermined her.
   
   In my opinion, she's grimy as hell.  But that said, I'd still take her over any republican candidate for two simple reasons.
   1.)  Republican economic policies cause more harm than good.  Cutting taxes for the rich simply doesn't work.  See Louisiana, Kansas, and now Wisconsin is joining the party.  Meanwhile, in California where they tax the wealthy, they turned a 26 Billion dollar deficit into a 10 Billion dollar surplus.
   2.)  Republican policies don't protect the environment.  Deregulation is the name of their game and that is the last thing we need at this turning point of protecting natural resources.  Imagine Flint, MI, but nationally.  No thanks.

   replyreport
   1. 86

      RJ Schwartzposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Seems to me that Director Comey wasn't too thrilled about having to let her off the hook.  He clearly laid out enough evidence to demonstrate where she could be prosecuted, but his handlers made him capitulate.  Wonder what they have on him?

      replyreport
      1. 77

         colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         
         
         "Extremely Careless" is GROSS NEGLIGENCE is a Felony.

         replyreport
   2. 78

      Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Strange, on your first point, the silence from conservatives have been deafening. Talk about a rebound, California is back and the conservative economic experiment fails dismally in more than just one state.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         gmwilliamsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         To say Hillary was stupid is untrue.  Hillary is FAR from stupid.  Hillary is smart enough to use her power & her connections to be cleared of all charges regarding her office e-mails.

         replyreport
         1. 94

            wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            You can't be cleared from charges that never see the light of day.  Just sayin'...

            replyreport
2. 94

   wildernessposted 7 years ago

   *shrug* If you want another president that views themselves as above the law and not subject to it, that has made abundantly clear that they will do as they wish regardless of laws, then have at it.  Vote for Hillary - you will get exactly that if enough people don't care either.  If you want, in the highest office in the land, someone that doesn't care enough about national security to follow even simple rules to protect it, vote for Hillary.
   
   It won't be the first time - more than a few politicians have come out of jail only to be immediately re-elected to the job they had when convicted.  Amazing but quite true.

   replyreport
   1. 86

      Valeantposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, cause Trump shows so much restraint.  The dude is breaking federal election rules on fundraising as we speak.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         RJ Schwartzposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Why is it anytime Clintons crimes are exposed we see nothing but "the other guy......"  How about telling us why you support an exposed liar?

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Valeantposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Because she is the lesser evil.  The other guy is an exposed liar too.  But he's also a racist con man who only cares about himself.  And his tax plan is idiotic.  Did you not read my opening remarks?

            replyreport
            1. 86

               RJ Schwartzposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Please tell me how he is racist - facts please, not media rehash

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  Valeantposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  It's not media rehash.  It's his own words.  Saying that someone can't do their job because of their heritage is about as racist as it gets.

                  replyreport
                  1. 86

                     RJ Schwartzposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     On June 2, 2016, Trump told the Wall Street Journal that Curiel had "an absolute conflict" in presiding over the litigation given that he is "of Mexican heritage" and a member of a Latino lawyers’ association. (When Trump said in a separate interview that Curiel "is a member of a club or society, very strongly pro-Mexican"  Trump told the journal the judge’s background was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border. "I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest," Trump said.
                     
                     Don't really see any racism.....just facts and political opinion

                     replyreport
                     1. 86

                        Valeantposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        We will agree to disagree with how that comes off, but most Republican politicians sided with me on this one.

                        replyreport
                        1. 86

                           RJ Schwartzposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           Most RINOs did agree with you

                           replyreport
                           1. 86

                              Valeantposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              Mitch McConnell is a RINO?  If he is, there are no Republicans.

                              replyreport
                              1. 86

                                 Valeantposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 And I love how anyone who agrees with anything a democrat says becomes a RINO.  That's a big reason why our government stopped working.  Because everyone got lambasted for cooperation.
                                 
                                 My way or the highway is not a great solution.

                                 replyreport
                     2. 78

                        Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        RJ, you can see through this, cant you?
                        
                        Curiel is an American citizen, it is insulting to him and his profession for Trump to ass ume that the man is incapable of being impartial. Trump's complaint about bias is supported by gossamer. He would make the same complaint about an American judge of Muslim background. Next, he will complain about the impartiality of the judge because Obama appointed him, if he has not done that already.

                        replyreport
                        1. 86

                           RJ Schwartzposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           Sorry, I don't agree with you on this one.

                           replyreport
                        2. 0

                           ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                           Any Questions ?

                           replyreport
                           1. 86

                              Valeantposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              You are pointing out that these are two different groups I hope. 
                              
                              The National Council of La Raza is the political group that likely opposes Trump.
                              
                              While Curiel is part of San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, aka the Latino Bar Association.  Two different groups that conservatives tried to imply were the same to try and help Trump sell his lie.

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 One has connection links to the other !   , The  law firm Curiel worked  with has , had links to the national group !     Either way , 'The Race' ,
                                 Please explain how Trump infers racism  and La Raza  doesn't ?
                                 
                                 And perhaps explain  the obvious and perpetual  hypocrisy  of the left .too ?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 86

                                    Valeantposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                    The website has one link to their homepage.  Wow!  Stop the press!  I run a website and have links to many other pages.  It doesn't mean I'm associated with them in any way.  It means I know they are out there and they relate to something my website provides.  You're reaching hard on that one.
                                    
                                    Telling an American citizen from Indiana that he can't do his job because of his family is from a certain place is kind of the definition of racism.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 0

                                       ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                       "Kind of the definition of racism "is constant accusations of racism against only the white race  of people , So P.C. popular  in America today , congratulations  its working !

                                       report
                                       1. 0

                                          PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                          I'm pretty sure Trump could wear a white hooded robe to the White House and if people called the action racist you would cry "PC"!

                                          report
                                    2. 86

                                       Valeantposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                       No one is accusing anyone but Trump in this instance.  Your deflection to all white people doesn't exclude his more than obvious statement that was racist.

                                       report
3. 0

   ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

   What definition of  racism  is but the most real and WHO is the racist  when  a candidate uses it to align votes and divide the people , then does nothing about REAL issues of racism  after  winning  .  Obama  and the Clintons   have used this accusatory  rhetoric to win , win , win ............and then  what have they  accomplished in positive  moves since ?
   
   Zip !   That's what .

   replyreport
   1. 86

      Valeantposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, the economy was in great shape before Obama took over.  The environment was totally being protected.  Everyone had health care.  Bin Laden was captured.  Everyone had equal marriage rights.
      
      Was Obama perfect.  Far from it.  He doubled the national debt.  Obamacare costs aren't working at all.  His justice department sucks at enforcing the laws already written - including immigration laws.  And he definitely always sides with the victim instead of the police.
      
      But to say he accomplished nothing is a grossly inaccurate statement.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Maybe I should have said , He accomplished nothing of any real substance ,  and there is the real issue , the definition of substance .      LGBH  ,     Obama   health care , trans-genders in the military  ,Bin Laden , what a joke !   
         
         All but one , non  issues ! 
         So Obama gets a phone call one day saying  ,
         General ,  "We can take Bin Laden right now  , do we go ?"    |
         Obama -  What would Jimmy Carter do ?....."uh  yes ".
         Tough call huh !    That is his single biggest accomplishment  of all !
         Other than that .........I got Nothin.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Valeantposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            You kidding?  Bush left the economy on the verge of collapse.  What kind of idiot sends us to war and cuts taxes?  We're going to spend a bunch on that, but we don't need any revenue stream coming in. 
            
            Obama has the economy stable, and considering this world market, that's saying something.
            
            And it's not shocking that you would ignore all he has done for the environment.  Republicans and conservatives don't give a shit about that.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               I would go back to my college professor  if I were you and ask him to stop with the fairy tale  economics 101  , .   100 million people just disappear out of  the work force - must be they  were beamed up to Obama La-La  land ?  Untold millions more on food stamps and welfare ,    unemployment among  our youth  50% +  ,  Yeaaa ! Obama - the unemployment rate is  5 % , tell us more stories  please !  What- 38,000 "new " jobs last month , are you aware that it takes  150,000 to show growth ?
               
               Say nothing about the national  debt  being twice what it was !   That's 100 %  higher than with Bush  two wars ! Speaking of which  , How's that getting out of two wars going with the Obama promise , Obama care  -  state insurance underwriters going broke  in about one third of states so far , The VA  is in shambles like never in history ! How about  Gitmo's 40 %  of  terrorists and enemy combatants returning to the battlefield.  But hey continue to hold the wool  over each others eye's - whatever works for your  liberal Nazi mentalities !

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  Valeantposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  100 million disappear out of the work force.  Part of it's called retirement for the baby boomers.  It's what's supposed to happen.  Let that stat go, it's not exactly correct.  People who aren't looking for work or the underemployed bring the stat up to 9.7% total.
                  
                  Our youth are idiots.  I wouldn't hire them, all they know how to do is drink, drugs and video games.
                  
                  People are on food stamps because the minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation.  And the wealth gap has grown too far apart.  People need a living wage instead of CEO's making $24 million a year.
                  
                  38,000 new jobs is better than losing jobs when a Republican is president, as is what has been the case.  So, knocking Obama for that while not looking at what the other side does isn't really all that fair.
                  
                  I'm with you on the National Debt and Gitmo, he's weak in both areas.  This spend, spend, spend policy needs to stop.
                  
                  And whoa with the Nazi insults.  Can't we discuss the differences without stooping to personal attacks?  Check your anger at the door and talk to me like an adult.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     Want to talk like adults  ,   get some reality and you'll realize that there is  no sense in your  leftist Obama-wash drivel ,that's sort of like brainwash but different ,  plant your feet on the ground and swallow a reality pill  .   Obama  , is almost .........no , .no,   he's just as  equally ineffective in leadership skills as Jimmy Carter was . You began an honorable debate  and lost ,  as many on the left do   but I'll  tell you what - here's your free cell phone for trying !
                     
                     
                     

                     replyreport
                     1. 86

                        Valeantposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        You arguing about winners and losers when two people have differing opinions is about as idiotic as the points you tried to make. 
                        
                        And let's go back to the two main points of this honorable debate.  Republican economic policies suck and republican environmental policies suck.  Neither of which you ever really proved to be false.  You just tried to tear Obama down without providing a single point to support your side. 
                        
                        In other words, you went typical Republican.  Create enough hate and division so that your own party's failings wouldn't be so obvious.

                        replyreport
                     2. 0

                        PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        You are so wrong, so often, that it is hard to keep up with your nonsense.  You and your female counterpart are so lacking in credibility that many of us just roll our eyes and move on.
                        
                        In case you care, there is no such thing as an Obamaphone.  Of course, I'm pretty sure you don't really care.  If the fact doesn't fit your story line, you ignore it or deny it.  Using falsehoods to trash the POTUS is your MO.
                        
                        http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/
                        
                        "This specific program, SafeLink, started under President George Bush, with grants from an independent company created under President Bill Clinton, which was a legacy of an act passed under President Franklin Roosevelt, which was influenced by an agreement reached between telecommunications companies and the administration of President Woodrow Wilson.
                        
                        Wilson Phones, anyone?"
                        
                        The money for these phones does not come from the government, in case you care about the truth.

                        replyreport
                        1. 94

                           wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           "The money for these phones does not come from the government, in case you care about the truth."
                           
                           No it doesn't.  But if you carefully examine your cell phone bill, and look up what each fee is for, you will find the tax that DOES pay for those free phones.
                           
                           So YOU pay for them, the money just funnels through the federal government along with all the other taxes.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              Sort of true, but my point is it has nothing to do with Obama.
                              
                              "....it is funded through the Universal Service Fund, which is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company, an independent, not-for-profit corporation set up by the Federal Communications Commission. The USF is sustained by contributions from telecommunications companies such as "long distance companies, local telephone companies, wireless telephone companies, paging companies, and payphone providers." The companies often charge customers to fund their contributions in the form of a universal service fee you might see on your monthly phone bill. The fund is then parceled out to companies, such as América Móvil, that create programs, such as SafeLink, to provide telecommunications service to rural areas and low-income households."
                              
                              http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

                              replyreport
                              1. 94

                                 wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 Kind of what I said, isn't it?  It is funded by YOU, whether you want to or not.  Although I could be wrong about it being a tax rather than a fee.  But let's see here - the FCC (a government agency) sets up a company but it's not the government.  You may swallow that, but I don't.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                    Swallow it or not. Your prerogative.
                                    
                                    I was only pointing out that Obama has nothing to do with free cell phones and that the government doesn't provide them.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 0

                                       ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                       Interesting that I point out that Obama is the  least accomplished president since Jimmy Carter and all you can hit me  with is  they aren't "Obama-phones"   wow ,  ......I'm impressed .

                                       report
                                       1. 0

                                          PrettyPantherposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                          You hold me to a higher standard than yourself? Typical nonsense.

                                          report
                                    2. 86

                                       Valeantposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                       Someone remind me what Bush, Jr did again to be so accomplished?

                                       report