I am really curious about what other women think; because I've only recently started paying attention to politics since the media is ramping up Trump so much, lately. Before that, I'm sorry... I was not even SORT of paying attention to any other candidate from any party. Hillary is my girl, and she is going in that office as far as I am concerned.
And yet, I find myself having to deal with a bout of the giggles whenever I watch Donald Trump - because he's serious. His rhetoric contains lots of animated expressions with comedic words and emphatic gestures that seem literaly hysterical to me - as if he is putting on an SNL sketch. Of course, he is kind of a funny-looking guy anyway - so maybe that just can't be helped. (What is it with rich guys being ugly? Remember when Ross Perot tried to become President? My ex voted for him, LoL!)
Trump has a hyped-up campaign that looks like he is putting on a really good show - and it just makes me giggle, because that's what it feels like to me. It's a circus and he is the 'Star' dancing bear. Really, he said this a couple days ago during one of his victory speeches: "I will be great for women" or something like that...
As a woman, when I think about who would be the best candidate for me - Trump is at the bottom of that list, right along with Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh. While I can certainly see what people find so entertaining about him (I think) - does he really think that he has a shot at knocking Hillary off of the hill for us women?
I know that there are a lot of conservative women out there who like what he is saying - because like every politician, he is doing his best to ramp up a fanbase. But, come on! Even *I* voted for Reagan TWICE!!
While I don't expect conservative GOP women to necessarily vote for Hillary - The Donald just can't be your first choice, can it? Can it?!! I mean, there is only ONE reason why the man has any respect at all - if you can call it that - money. I make SO MUCH MONEY so I can buy myself this platform; and YOU poor folks HAVE to listen to me - because *I* represent the 1% of the people who really matter in this country.
Think about it... ANYONE who has enough money can buy themselves a soapbox and say all the right things. You probably know someone who SHOULD be on that soapbox or maybe even YOU should be on it. But, we have Trump because he has the money to be spouting off like this - Not only in the form of currency to continue spewing his divisive hate messages; but that is why/how we know him - because he is famous for his money and selfish-involved extravagance. I mean, he has got to be one of the most vain people on the planet.
He does not represent the majority of 'we the people'. How can he? What do you think? Is my perspective ridiculous?
Donald Trump is far from my first choice. But, 'us women' as you put it doesn't exist in my mind. I would hate to vote by sex, race, religion, or anything else. Unfortunately, without pushing for me to vote for her just because she is a woman Hilary has little to offer and a lot of baggage dragging her down.
If I had to vote tomorrow and it was down to the two of them I'd have to vote for Trump because I cannot imagine a country with Hillary at the helm. I shudder to imagine a country with Trump at the helm but given a choice I see him as the lesser of the two evils but, unfortunately, the goofier of the two buffoons.
Wow. Now I'm scared - I was deceiving myself to think that the garganuan amount of brainwashing that has gone on in this country where we are concerned - yes, WE women - was somehow a fading, distant memory. It's scary, because your ilk is also very shrill, devious and resentful. I really would not put it past people like you to still vote for this guy.
FYI - 'We the People' are on the same side. It is people like him who INTENTIONALLY creates the unusually DEEP divisions that exist between people's extreme ideals - whatever the topic is.
And that's okay with you? You WANT things to get worse between people who think like you and people who don't?
Amazing. Absolutely amazing.
Didn't mean to scare you. I'll be honest. I get scared by minorities who are somehow single issue voters. I don't see it so much as having been brain washed but being selfish.
As far as my 'ilk' being shrill, devious and resentful. You shouldn't worry too much. There aren't many of us ilks out here. Most women I know are kind of like you are coming off. I'll spare you my assessment of that.
I really don't understand where the "shrill, devious and resentful" assessment of Live to Learn's reply comes from. I didn't see that in there at all.
I didn't say she was being those things - I said people of her 'ilk' - or think like her - have a reputation for those things. In my opinion, that is the only reason why you would vote for someone like Trump - to 'stick it to' liberals. When in the end, he wouldn't win; and would only accomplish to create more and deeper divisions. I actually thought her reply was pretty lowkey.
Now, you sound like a politician.
Yes, keep picking my words apart and don't listen to the message I am trying to get across. That is what I meant by 'shrill, devious and resentful' - very typical. What other reason would you vote for him? Because you don't like people you have labeled as 'liberals'. I don't consider myself to be a liberal - I'm an Independent. And, I would really appreciate it if you would not vote for crazy people just because they have the ability to scream the loudest and will give you the most wicked satisfaction.
I don't know that I have ever said I have anything against liberals. I actually like Bernie. I don't like Hillary, but I am not ignorant enough to believe she is 'all liberals'. But, since we are making requests, I'd like to see women spend more time actually understanding the issues as opposed to simply backing a candidate because she happens to be of the same sex.
That isn't the reason why I am voting for her - nor is that the reason of any other woman. We KNOW what Hillary's policies are, what her experience is - and we know that she isn't perfect. She is getting my vote for a long list of reasons, I assure you. That is the reason why I haven't been watching anyone else. I know who I want this time. I have yet to hear something come out of her mouth that I did not understand where it came from - to name one thing.
This is very interesting. You have convinced yourself you know what I think. Now, you know what every other woman thinks. I would think God had more important things to do than post on the Hub Pages forums.
Learn something new every day.
More of the same from you... What is this thing with 'god' now? Because I'm sure that women are not voting for her just because she is a woman? We've been watching her for a long time. What is there not to know? I don't agree with her on everything - for instance, *I* would have divorced Bill when he turned out to be such a lying cheat, LoL!
Still, I have to admit that it will be a bit of a kick to see him as her sidekick instead of the other way around. This country needs a first-gentleman, as much as they need a woman as President. And what better one to start that position than a former-president, ha!
Please don't drag God into this... there is no smoothing the line between 'believers' and non-believers. That is why we need to start thinking about the 'extremes' in our society a different way - instead of trying to stuff each other's 'beliefs' down each other's throats. I like the way Hillary does that. I like the way she represents both myself and family. That's all.
As a woman, myself, I'm curious to know why you think you speak for women? You don't speak for me. As a matter of fact, it is an empty claim you are making because you don't speak for anyone but yourself. Do you think claiming others agree with you somehow makes your opinion more valuable? Unfortunately, making an empty claim accomplishes exactly the opposite.
What does that have to do with her qualifications for office? It is simply an embarrassing public moment in her life.
Another absolutely useless point. I wouldn't advocate voting someone into office just so we could see their spouse as first something or other.
I agree. Only because that is about as pointless a need as zircon encrusted tweezers.
Sure. As long as you cease to post as if you think you are some all knowing being who speaks for every woman. Especially when your attempts to read my mind have proven you can't.
You mean, kind of like you are attempting to stuff your beliefs down other's throats by insisting that you know what all women are thinking and if they don't think like you they are therefore "shrill, devious and resentful" ?
Judging by my assessment of Hillary and my interactions here with you, I am not at all surprised you think that
Thank you very much for pointing out all my useless points, LtL - and confirming my original assessment of you.
I knew your previous apology lacked any sincerity. Although out of respect for Pretty Panther I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt; I, too, knew that my assessment of you had been correct. I had little doubt that you were aware of the fact that this was my opinion.
Which is why I don't really understand why you had to reply a second time to that post.
It is even more interesting to me to review the course of our exchange. Accusing me of being shrill, devious and resentful for simply saying I couldn't support your choice for candidate and then reviewing the course of the conversation from that point until now you are displaying all of those qualities, and then some. Although, unlike your comments imply you consider any woman who disagrees with you on this choice of candidate must display those qualities; I do not assume anyone who supports Hillary is in that category. I think many people do support Hillary because they actually understand her stand on policies and agree with them. I don't think the fact that she is a woman bears any weight in their decision to support her. I can respect that.
As a third person watching this exchange, I think both of you are misinterpreting the other, quite badly. Just my two cents.
Misfit, you seem to be stereotyping Live to Learn as what you perceive to be a "typical" Trump lover, as someone who is anti-liberal, but she is far from that. In my (admittedly) limited experience with her on the forums, she is quite reasonable, with an independent mind. I also don't see Misfit's comments as saying she is voting for Hillary only or mostly because she is a woman.
Just puttin' my two cents in where it probably doesn't belong. Why? I dunno. I see you both as smart ladies, something I'd like to see more of on the forums.
Hm. I suppose if I have misinterpreted anything she has said it is unfortunate. All I see is attempts to pigeon hole anyone into an odd hole who doesn't belong to the Hillary cheering section. Kind of like when I get pigeon holed by the Trump cheering section for not picking up one of their tambourines.
Thank you. If that is true, it hasn't come across very well to me, yet. My apologies if I have judged you incorrectly, LtL.
I have deep concerns about what Trump would do about women's issues, or any issues at all. I respect the fact he isn't taking money from SuperPaks, but his personality is so volatile, I don't think he would make a good leader. He was once a respected businessman, but went insane when Obama was elected twice by the people, and got involved in the whole birther movement.
I'm voting for Hillary. Not because she's a woman, although I would like to see a woman president in the U.S. in my life time. She has the best resume and most experience of anyone running on either side. That should count for something. Many of the "scandals" she is accused of are just over hyped from FOX news. Colin Powell and Condi Rice used their own servers, and now the R's want to indict her over that. They just keep harping on the same stuff, no matter how many investigations clear her. I don't know how this climate of making up facts and ignoring the truth got accepted, but it's crazy..
People forget, Obama was a one term senator,and so are Rubio and Cruz. They simply don't have experience or the time in to know the other senators and people they have to make deals with, and that hurts all of us. Hillary knows a lot of R's and can work with them, hopefully stopping these ridiculous shutdowns of government which cost us so much money. I know we can't just fire senators since we elect them, but when they don't work, they should not be paid, just like us.
"Colin Powell and Condi Rice used their own servers, and now the R's want to indict her over that."
Oops, maybe a little detail might be helpful.
No, they did not use their own servers.
Powell received two non-classified, (at the time), emails from the State department's communications system, forwarded by an assistant to his, (Powell's), personal email account, (not his personal server).
Secretary Rice did not use an email system at all - much less a personal server. It was one of her assistants that received the disputed emails.
Most stories found by this Google search reporting this also mentioned the facts I just did. Did you miss these details, or were they not important to your point?
Gosh, let's hype up one minor thing and ignore the other good points that were made. I have personally never been bothered by the fact that Hillary wanted to use email and had her own servers - or that Obama wanted to have a Blackberry when he took office. It is how business gets done in this world, now. I don't know how any politician operates without them - but apparently they do, ha! The email stuff is a non-issue for me. As far as I'm concerned - she found a way to get things done efficiently.
I mostly agree with you on this email server point, so where's your beef with my correcting an incorrect assertion?
ps I do disagree with almost all of Jean's points about Hillary, but those were subjective opinions, (we all get to have those), which I would be more than glad to debate. Her assertions about Powell and Rice however, were incompletely stated facts, (unlike opinions, we don't all get our own), leading to a false impression. Hence my response.
It is all petty stuff rehashed over and over. The R' s want to go back after all investigations and mark emails classified after the fact. That is illegal. Just admit you will always find something to accuse her of, you don't like her. At least that's honest.
I think the issue is clear enough. Yes the GOP want to fry Hillary on the email issue. But why did she have to have a separate private email to conduct her official business. If it was a private email server she should have only used it for personal communications. Her comingling the two, private and personal, emails was in direct violation of State Department policy and now that she is being called on account of it we are to believe it was a mistake or she did not know. It is all a part of her dishonesty and is now she wants to caste it off like she did with Whitewater, Vince Foster and the many other myriad issues that have surrounded her and her husband.
If you love Hillary this will all fall on deaf ears. If you love Hillary you will accept the sexism issue as well. The bottom line is that I believe the closets are too full to allow her and her baggage to occupy the White House again.
If I understand you correctly - R's are mad at Hillary for the email stuff because she MIXED personal emails with working emails? Maybe I'm not getting it... But again, that is a NORMAL WAY to conduct business these days. It is a time-saver. She hid the fact that she was doing it because it is a STUPID rule in this day and age. A stupid rule that R's have ramped into more imaginary 'baggage' against her. Every nominee has baggage, I'm sure. But I am the most confident having the past experience and wisdom of Hillary on the Hill. Trump is a bull in a China shop. They 'might' make a good team - but even that is really scary. I mean, how would you control something like his big, offensive mouth?
Just like the Republican Led "Benghazi Hearings SHAM" and other RIGHT Wing "FICTIONAL Tales", some of Hillary's E-mail's were "Classified" after the FACT, Retroactively, which is fine but indicates NO mis-conduct on her part unless of course she used the system to intentionally SHARE NUCLEAR BOMB Blueprints or "Trump Hair PLUG & How to FLEECE Innocent Consumer" Secrets with Russia or some other unsavvory entity which we all know will be the next "Angle" BACKWARD CONservative Republican's will try to PEDDLE via FOX Loser Snooze channel ~
We all understand the "Right WING Conspiracy" against Hillary is certainly "Alive & Well" because CONservatives FEAR her Powerful Message & Competence ~
Everyone on the inside understands the fact that either a Hillary or Bernie Nominee spells a "Wipe - OUT" for CONservative Republicans in November 2016 ~
He use of a private e-mail server violates the Freedom of Information Act and it probably violates national security legislation.
The Federal Records Act requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails, and government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.
FOIA is designed to "improve public access to agency records and information."
The NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained. They stress that materials must be maintained "by the agency," that they should be "readily found" and that the records must "make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress."
Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison.
Watch Hillary lying at a debt. She just keeps on digging the hole deeper and deeper hoping she'll come out on the other side as president of the United States. Insane!
https://www.facebook.com/westernjournal … 0/?fref=nf
Hillary was on first name bases with Alinshy, who gave credit to Lucifer the devil in his book. Hillary wrote her extensive senior college thesis, mostly a positive critique on his work. (Obama did the same)
No thanks, I don't want anything to do with that! No good fruit falling from those trees.
I don't know your age, but haven't your views changed since HS or College? I certainly hope you matured and learned differently than you did about certain issues and people. Life changes us all the time, we see and learn new things. I would be more suspicious of a politician that had the same views for years. That is a very stagnant person who learns nothing from experiences.
These violent crowds are not liberals trying to stop Trump, that is ridiculous. His own party is begging the other R candidates not to get out of the race, because they don't want to be stuck with Trump as their nominee. It's probably too late, unless they have a brokered election, and he won't go for that.He'll sue everyone he can, that's his solution to most things. I agree, he is a smart man, but he is also a troublemaker. He has his security people violently throwing people out of his own rallies, and acts like it's funny when they get hurt. Trump is a dangerous person.
I just can't see him acting like a mature adult if he wins and has to meet with leaders of other countries. I do see a nice side of him once in a while, but he has thin skin. If somebody hurts his feelings (and they get hurt really easily) he makes sure he hurts them twice.
"I don't know your age, but haven't your views changed since HS or College? I certainly hope you matured and learned differently than you did about certain issues and people."
That's all I read of your post, because you lost me there.
That's not nice! Don't try to transfer the way you might be on to someone else just because you don't agree with someone with opposing views on politicians you support.. c'mon...personal attacks? I'm not politically correct, but I am not making personal attacks here. Please, don't take anything I said personally, because there was no personal attack. I don't deserve that, its disrespectful toward another Hubber. I follow the Forum Rules and I expect others to do that.
Politicians and public figures are open for criticism, personal attacks and insults. Hubbers are not (read the rules).
I'm not upset, I'm not emotionally involved. I'm just enjoying my freedom of speech (within the rules). You don't have to like it...ok...say "I don't like it" ... but don't insult me for gawd sake.
I was merely asking you if you never changed an opinion about a situation or person from the time you were still of school age and the age you are now. I didn't mean to insult you or make it personal, I'm sorry if I expressed myself the wrong way. You were talking about a paper Hillary wrote over 45 years ago. I'm sure she feels differently about a lot of things. She was a Republican in college. You must feel differently about certain issues or people now than you did at some point in your life, we all change. That's all.
"He has his security people violently throwing people out of his own rallies, and acts like it's funny when they get hurt. Trump is a dangerous person."
This is funny. Not that he has people thrown out, but that some are upset that those wishing to disrupt private get-togethers are not allowed to do so. This is just another case of Trump doing something non-PC, and that people like. I for one am extremely tired of "protesters" that find it useful to disrupt the daily lives of everyone around them to get media attention to themselves, and I don't think I'm alone. The idiots that think they have a right to disrupt a rally put together by one person (Trump), for a specific purpose (to increase his support), and change that purpose to suit themselves deserve what they get.
And yes, Trump is dangerous, extremely dangerous. To the politicians desperately wanting him to go away and leave politics the dirty game it has become, a game that does not care about the people, the country or anything but the politician. It's why he's gathering support in spite of his SOB mannerisms.
People have the right to gather and the right to free speech, but I find it so scary that I see people getting hurt at a rally that gets so out of hand. I suppose the media is guilty in part, they give so much coverage to events that go this way. But Trump gets the crowd so stirred up, and so in part it's his fault too. I just can't imagine him representing our country.
But politics is a dirty game, and I am sure that won't change anytime soon.
Jean, I may be missing something out of these reports, but it wasn't Trump and it wasn't the crowd in general that got out of hand...it was the people that got themselves thrown out (and not by private security, according to what I read). They crossed the line in their attempt to disrupt the planned ceremony - they weren't there to join in, they were there expressly to disrupt and disturb the event and deserved exactly what they got.
Or maybe I'm just an irascible old man that is sick of demonstrators putting themselves, and their "cause" above the laws the rest of us must obey. I'm sick of being having my roads obstructed by some sign waving idiot that thinks they have a God given right to block traffic. I'm tired of paying to clean up and rebuild the mess demonstrators leave behind them. I'm weary of the constant barrage of causes, and the demand that those causes are of such massive importance that everybody within eye or ear shot must stop what they're doing and pay attention.
I was watching on TV, there were police and private security. Trump was having them at his rallies pretty early on, but I guess a person of his wealth has to be careful, and he is traveling with his family a lot of the time too. I didn't see Trump.
I guess he's not responsible for who shows up, but he makes a big deal of being cruel to people. I understand what you mean though, it's always something. It seems like this election cycle is so much longer than most, maybe because they began so early, or there were so many debates. I feel like I don't even care too much who wins, nothing really gets done. I know she's flawed, but I'll vote for Hillary. Not just because she's a woman, but I believe she has the best resume. I don't want to argue about her achievements or lack of them. I believe she and Obama hated each other so much, he tried to keep her out of the country as much as he could when she was SOS, and she felt the same.
You seem to like history, a good book I read was The President's Club by Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy. It talks about the Presidents back to Truman, and how they actually gave each other advice when a new one came into office, and how they supported each other. It gave a surprising outlook on George Bush and Obama, Truman started "The Club". Nixon had a lot of help, since when he took office there were quite a few living ex Presidents. Clinton said the person he grieved the most for was Richard Nixon, he cried as hard as the day his Mom died. It's really interesting, if you have time, seeing what they went through and how the others tried to advise them how to deal with not only the office of the POTUS, but how to have a family life too. After seeing all their campaigns, you would never believe how nurturing and classy they were with each other in private. George W told Obama to get his briefings, and take an hour to be with his daughters for breakfast before school, so he could see them as much as he could. He said since his girls were in college, he and Laura never had to deal with their life in the White House too much. George HW Bush and Clinton had an almost Father/Son relationship, especially after Clinton's heart surgery. I think you would enjoy it, it's not all gossipy, the backdrop is all the stuff going on in history as they try to have lives too.
I saw a report last night of something similar, where the protesters were thrown out without the aid of police and such. So it seems you're right - that Trumps security is clearing the area without help.
But what should we expect? A rally is designed and put on to cheer for the candidate, not put him or her down. Anything is not welcome, and specifically protesters that have only negative instead of positive things to say are most definitely not welcome. So when they go anyway, for the express purpose of disrupting the event for their own purposes, well, they got what they deserved. Or at least that's how I see it - I wouldn't go to a college football rally for the homecoming game and try to take it over to scream about the evils of global warming and don't expect or want anyone else to do it either. That a crowd has gathered for a specific purpose does not give protesters an automatic right to coop the even for their own purposes. They can set up their own anti-Trump rally if they wish, but they have no right to interrupt someone else's rally as they see fit.
Of course Trump has security - all the candidates do. For that matter any time there is anything like this - a large group getting together for any purpose - security is necessary. Whether a parade, a protest, a sports game or whatever, there will be security present. Whether it's cops hired by the event promoter or private security, there will be security personnel.
Sometimes, big offending mouths are willing to speak certain truths that calm, civilized mouths may never even dream of speaking.
Obviously your high level of support for Mrs. Clinton is clouding your visions in this entire discussion. Hillary went through a lot of trouble to set up her own server to avoid accountability to the American People - it wasn't for convenience, or because of having to carry multiple devices as she claims (anyone knows you can access multiple accounts on a smart phone) - she put her entire inner circle on the server as well to avoid accountability to the American People. You can criticize Mr. Trump for his angry approach, but he is the only candidate which is truly expressing how most of America feels and that is why he gets support. Clinton is getting matched blow for blow by a Socialist for goodness sake - America has never been socialist, but Democrats would rather look to him rather than support her and her mountains of baggage and deception. I'm sorry that you and so many other women can only see the fact that she is a woman and somehow equate that to she'll be a good leader for America. It's funny how you say Republicans are hyping up the whole e-mail issue and how the rule is stupid, when deep down you know that she is going to fall from grace because of it. Tell me what she's actually accomplished while in an elected office? She only had 3, yes 3 bills sponsored in 8 years of the Senate and they were all minor ones and had nothing to do with public policy. When she was APPOINTED SOS, she proved to be a poor leader, presided over a foreign policy that was a disaster, destroying the stability of the Middle East and de-facto creating the global refugee crisis we see happening. Her participation and now backing away from the Iranian nuclear deal is another failure and its dissolving before our eyes and Iran launched a nuke test the other day. You might not like Trump, but he's a real expert on trade, monetary issues, and running lean and efficient businesses - exactly what America needs right now.
Obviously you're an avid FOX Loser Snooze Watcher ~
Insulting me doesn't change the facts - Plus I hate Fox
"she put her entire inner circle on the server as well to avoid accountability to the American People" - YEAH, and she DID IT BECAUSE it was an efficient way to run an important office. Who monitors ANY politician when they are 'just talking' to people face-to-face? Who makes sure that they don't say 'the wrong security thing' out loud to the wrong person?
I trust Hillary not to put the American People at risk by communicating sensitive material through email - in the same way I trust her to conduct herself in a professional manner when she is rubbing shoulders with World Leaders.
Hillary is not perfect and she has made mistakes. But, being a 'bad leader' is not one of her weaknesses. Hillary gets hit with LOTS of double-standards just because she is a woman. You darn right I'm extra-protective of her because of it. Misogyny doesn't belong in politics or anywhere else in this country in the 21st Century.
You're rationalizing, but that's what I anticipated you would do. The entire Federal government has a system because that is what they've chosen as the most efficient way to run things, so stop trying to make it out like she was some sort of innovator. Hillary has already demonstrated that she cannot be a competent communicator and has not accomplished anything.
When being interviewed she was asked about her major accomplishments as Secretary of State. She answered, “My accomplishments as Secretary of State? Well, I’m glad you asked! My proudest accomplishment in which I take the most pride, mostly because of the opposition it faced early on, you know… the remnants of prior situations and mindsets that were too narrowly focused in a manner whereby they may have overlooked the bigger picture and we didn’t do that and I’m proud of that. Very proud. I would say that’s a major accomplishment.”
It has nothing to do with the fact she is female - save that for your feminist summer camp roundtable. Her policies and her history will be bad for America. Again, I'll ask you what were her accomplishments while serving in an elected position?
“My accomplishments as Secretary of State? Well, I’m glad you asked! My proudest accomplishment in which I take the most pride, mostly because of the opposition it faced early on, you know… the remnants of prior situations and mindsets that were too narrowly focused in a manner whereby they may have overlooked the bigger picture and we didn’t do that and I’m proud of that. Very proud. I would say that’s a major accomplishment.”
Hillary has learned very well how to 'talk the talk' since she has spent so much time integrating into the ridiculous processes of male dominated political circles. In fact, she was 'into' those circles LONG BEFORE she married Bill Clinton. So yeah, she's got 'how to talk' down pretty well. LoL!
Also, am I the only person who can see that Hillary took that position; and played the SoS part very 'safe' and low-key for as long as she did in order to stir up the least amount of bs against her as possible - so that she could be on her best footing for this election?
If the email thing is her biggest offense during her SoS reign (I'm sure it isn't from your perspective) - I'm okay with it; and yeah, I totally forgave her for it. Easily. Because I could easily understand why she did it. I don't think she'll do it again.
Whoever makes decisions surrounding 'how things are technically done' at the White House certainly has valid reasons for being concerned about security-sensitive information being relayed through internet channels.
However, I also had a very valid point about 'trusting' candidates to use online tools responsibly. In my opinion, every politician's office should have basic email communication and Internet access to enable a well-connected team.
Things get 'leaked' all kinds of different ways, don't they? Snowden? How has just about EVERY previous 'sensitive-thing' in this country - from the beginning of its foundation - been leaked since our government is afraid of using email?
The past is the past... Heck, Bill rarely crosses my mind when I think about Hillary. She has proven herself over DECADES since she was young woman - as well as anyone else up on the debate stages on either side of the ring. She's got to be getting awfully tired of having to be such a damn good girl.
I like the way she thinks. None of her platforms are rigid, inflexible concepts. I expect her to be very good at taking the collective information from her various teams to come up with the best ideas for this country to move forward.
Hillary has the experience. She knows how to do the dance. And I'm really hoping that she'll be able to get things done after she is elected President because of it.
Don't know that I agree that Hillary can be forgiven for the emails. The reason is that it isn't that she put sensitive documents on a private server; it is that Hillary is above the law. She wasn't supposed to put any official mail there, but although she knew the rules quite well the law didn't apply to her.
And that's a completely different matter. No, she probably won't put sensitive information out again, but she will ignore any rule she doesn't like to have to deal with; Hillary Clinton is way too important to have the follow the rules as everyone else does.
I agree, wilderness. Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar. People are not forgiven unless they turn from their evil ways. Hillary just keeps on lying....and her followers..."the real sheeple" keep on following.
Sure forgive her, for your own peace of mind, not because she deserves it...not yet, and maybe never will. I'll wait and see and I have peace with that! (BTW, that is Scriptural)
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/ … s-n2130060
Ten paragraphs of drivel....what has Hillary accomplished was the question, not what crime Snowden did. Saying someone else did it doesn't make it right. Your attempt to make everything about her being a woman is wrong. And by the way, before Bill she failed the DC Bar Exam, was fired from the Watergate case for ethics, and was considered washed up. Please tell me about how great her background will be for America. How has she proven herself? serving time in politics isn't a badge of honor and in her case it should be a badge of shame
There was no official question - however, I did respond to your observation on her remarks about her accomplishments.
One paragraph of tired, judgemental, repetitive propaganda against ten paragraphs of logic - and again, MISSING the point: I was too young to be paying much attention about the Whitewater stuff (RELAX, I've looked into it enough to know what a big deal it was at the time); I don't care what your opinion of Benghazi is - mine is different; and I've already explained the email thing that people like you keep ignoring, above.
And SURPRISE - LOTS of lawyers fail Bar Exams, sometimes multiple times. Hell, even Captain Picard failed his first big test at Star Fleet Academy, ha! I'm really not interested in your conservative, brainwashed view of her past. Why?
Point #2 that you also missed: "I like the way she thinks. None of her platforms are rigid, inflexible concepts. I expect her to be very good at taking the collective information from her various teams to come up with the best ideas for this country to move forward. Hillary has the experience. She knows how to do the dance. And I'm really hoping that she'll be able to get things done after she is elected President because of it."
Oh my RJ,
"...before Bill she failed the DC Bar Exam, was fired from the Watergate case for ethics, and was considered washed up. "
You must have missed it. I hope you don't mind if I offer some updated info, (and maybe a little perspective), regarding that particular Hillary blurb - which has been debunked, (at least the worse part), almost as many times as it has been offered.
Yes, Hillary did flunk the 1973 DC Bar exam, but so did 33% of the 817 folks that took it that year. (ps. She began seeing Bill in 1971, so it did not happen "before Bill")
No, Hillary was not fired etc. etc. I realize it was a few weeks back, but here is a thread response with all the info you need to update the facts; Quilligrapher responds to the old Hillary was fired canard
Right now, a Trump rally in Chicago got cancelled. The people are so violent, they are hitting and punching each other, and the police are in the hall trying to bring order. There are also people acting out on the street.
If Trump was any kind of leader, he should man up and get back in that hall, and tell his followers that violence at his rallies is not acceptable. This is going to be a big leap downwards for him. I always do an Astrology profile on the nominees, and was hoping it wouldn't be him. Maybe it won't be, if stuff like this happens. He is using people's anger against them, and I hope nobody gets hurt.
The coalition of leftist anti-American contingents (Anarchists, Black Lives Matter, etc.) are getting increasingly crazy about stopping Donald Trump's campaign and rallies that draw massive crowds. The numbers of protests are increasing and they are being coordinated by the progressive movement. Trouble is coming from plants pretending to be Trump supports, protesters, and various liberal actives groups. They're getting paid to protest and make a scene by bad men like Soros.
Cops are getting ready with riot gear in Cleveland for the Republican National Convention. BLM is planning on wearing their own riot gear from what I read. A guide on what to wear was publish in Arabic. This election could get bloody yet...and I wouldn't put any blame on Trump...he is the one 'they are trying to stop with all they've got, which isn't pretty at all. This could get bloody.
I'm sure this will get plenty of coverage over the next few days. The protesters who came to cause trouble are at fault. The mainstream media will spin it!
Trump doesn't want the violence...he is a nice man. He would never want this violence that shuts down his own rally. That would be like cutting your own nose off. He isn't stupid.
"The coalition of leftist anti-American contingents (Anarchists, Black Lives Matter, etc.) are getting increasingly crazy about stopping Donald Trump's campaign..."
This is the problem right there 1) conservative fanatics can't own up to their own reputation for supporting extremist behavior no matter how violent it gets; and 2) they keep trying to label liberals and leftists as 'anti-American'.
Leftist are no more extreme in their 'leftistism' than conservatives are in their 'righteousness' - and BOTH 'extremes' are ANTI-American. Yeah, both of them are because they are not willing to include ALL of 'We the People' in government policies.
Trump is an extremist; and his purpose on that platform is SPECIFICALLY to stir up the elite and their faithful, devoted slaves who would not only VOTE for his dogma, but KILL for it.
It's a lost cause, R.J. Misfit does not care about Hillary's lack of ethics or her vile record in politics and in life. She does not understand the seriousness of an FBI probe nor why certain standards are set in place to prevent anyone from hacking into her email account, thus risking national security. Nor does she care that Hillary deleted thousands of emails. Hmmm. Wonder why? Obviously, Hillary is not fit to be president. She couldn't even handle being Secretary of State. She resigned.
Anyhoo....Misfit will likely delete this email, just like she did my last one. Your arguments are excellent and factual. Unfortunately, most die-hard progressives don't care about facts. Theirs is a socialist agenda/mentality. They even admit that the means justify the ends; it's a well-known, unfortunate fact.
Hillary would be a disastrous president. Personally, I remain confident that she won't win. That being said, I am not a Trump fan either. I will vote for another conservative.
Thanks for the support - I know I'll never change her viewpoint but I'd still love to see her try to show me an accomplishment
Lol. Not gonna happen---even if Hillary had an accomplishment to speak of.
The emails are only the tip of the iceberg. She has a lot more baggage then we even know. Elizabeth Warren would have been the best person the Dems should have gotten behind. With Hillary she only worries about what you want to have her tell you and not the outcome. Typical establishment bought politician.
I have no love for Trump but he does get things done. Maybe that should say something.
Did you watch the debate last night (3/10/2016)? It was civil, and Trump didn't fall back on his trademark insults and bully tactics, largely because the questions stuck to policy, not personality. As a result, Trump was forced to talk policy, and he was exposed as a shallow, uninformed lightweight. His foreign policy comes down to " I can cut better deals." LOL, what a delusional loon.
Okay, I don't trust her. And I don't agree with your opinion of her qualifications. But so what? We all get to have our opinions, whether they are right or wrong. I did not criticize your opinion of her.
That was not the point of my response to you. I did not pick on Hillary. I did not promote some petty transgression. And I did not get into why I thought your opinion of Hillary's qualifications was wrong. I simply pointed out that you made a statement that wasn't true.
I didn't take it personally. It's not a great bunch of candidates to choose from. I am coming from the point of view that all politicians lie to a certain extent, or there's a lot about them we don't know. The Clintons always fought dirty, and if she is up against Trump, it will be the worst we've seen. I still don't think the emails are a big thing, no matter what she does, or did 20 years ago, will always be criticized by a certain few. Nobody's perfect. And I think it's a credit she stayed married, somebody else acted like that was bad. It's obvious it's a political marriage, where Bill and Hillary have a meeting of the minds. Plus I think she probably still cares for him anyway, it's not unheard of for people to forgive one another in a marriage.
The attention Sanders and Trump are getting prove how sick everyone is of Clintons and Bushes. And Trump used to be a D anyway. Maybe he could make good deals, but unless he learns to behave better, he's scary.
Cruz is disliked buy almost everyone. Rubio might be a good President 10 years from now, he doesn't seem ready for Prime Time. People should have taken a better look at Kasick, sp? He seems reasonable. I think the problem is that every time the R's lose, they misinterpret that as thinking the public wants them to go farther right. Now the tea party has ruined the Republican party, and moderate, normal R's won't stand up against them. D's may make the same mistake and go too far to the left because of Sanders in time. It's a mess, and the process seems to get less democratic all the time.
That short line "the lesser of two evils" kind of cancels out the word 'Choice' doesn't it?When you have to 'Choose' between two evils;that's the same as saying We're going to shoot you in the head BUT!...You get to 'Choose' which of these two guns we'll use to kill you...
Politics:Just another fake failed reality show...every word scripted...with the winner "Chosen" long ago...and not by "We the People"...
I think he would be bad for everyone, not just women. I don't necessarily think Hillary would be better for women than, say, Sanders, but between her and Trump there should be no contest. Yes, Hillary has her establishment credentials, and a lot of people don't like her and don't trust her, but when it comes to her actual policy positions, her intelligence, and her experience, she is head and shoulders above Trump.
Thank you. That is how I was hoping people would see it. It's not like I don't think the GOP should find a good candidate to go up against Hillary - but sheesh, make it a good one. Don't make divisions deeper - that is what Trump would do.
America already has seen disasterous results in voting by skin color, now you want to repeat the cycle in voting by sex? Please tell me her accomplishments in previous elected offices and her shortcomings, then compare them to others....that's how we the people vote.
Your message is that as a liberal, you think you are right....Obama has been the worst divisionary president ever. Trump is for America first, Hillary is for Hillary first, the Clinton Foundation second, money third, etc.
That sir, is utter bilge. Your are wearing the Trump badge in plain site. This is the kind of rubbish thinking that attracts people to Trump. What are you talking about. 'voting by skin color'?. Obviously you are separating how WE people vote from how THEY, and RJ, it is total nonsense. Define WE and They? The divisiveness of Trump over all groups would make Obama like Jesus in comparison. How about checking yourself?
Obama got elected because he was black. He was unqualified at the time. Don't play the surprised role, it's beneath you.
Obama was elected in response to a GOP economic disaster the train wreck of Republican economic policies responsible for the downturn of 2008. Think hard. Under those circumstances almost Democrat could have won., and I suppose Trump is qualified? I doubt it.
You are operating within the 'bubble' of rightwing resentment and confusion. Why not cut the charades and explain how was elected because he was black?
I'm not in a bubble - he brought blacks out to vote, which is great when a candidate can get people to participate. It's not racist. Trumps doing a similar thing. Be a realist and see it for what it is.
So, blacks do not have the right to vote now, right. Blacks vote Democratic, Kerry won 88 percent of the Black vote in 2004 and Obama won 95% of Black voters in 2008. So the outcome of an Obama presidency was due to this 7 percent? That is pretty lame, I'd say.
It is lot more than the surplus of black voters that put Obama over the top. I see exactly what it is Trump attracts the right wing crowd, so if he wins I can say the white rightwingers (color based) is responsible for the Trump victory, is that OK? It is ok for me to say this on the same premise that you make for Obama?
The only Conservative left in this race is Ted Cruz. Why is he not under your consideration? In my humble opinion, voters needs to pay attention to the candidates and do a little research. Don't be fooled by the media hype and the reality TV antics of some candidates. Ask yourself what is important to you and what is the most important attribute of a President? As Reagan famously said, we need bold colors and not pastels...
Yes. I think it is very ridiculous that Donald Trump is even in the presidential nomination mix. He lost me a long time ago when he cheated on the beautiful Ivana and then married his (admittedly equally beautiful) mistress. IF we're going to judge people on such shallow things for president... Who dealt with that kind of lewd, embarrassing situation better?
WTF does a divorce have to do with running Ameica? Hillary should have divorced Bill, but she was power hungry...don't mean to burst your bubble
Is anyone interested in voting for the most qualified candidate? When we put a person in the oval office, that is all that is going to matter.
My question is this: Why couldn't Republicans find one or two reasonable candidates to run for the highest office in the land? I can think of several and I'm a Democrat!
They did, in my opinion. John Kasich. That hasn't gone over too well.
Also, Carly Fiorina (or how ever you spell it). Although I did get a little put out with her on her emotional complaints about Planned Parenthood.
Yes! I can even think of a few female Republican candidates that I LIKE, ha! No, it does not have to be a woman - but neither should women be condoning Trump. Every woman - conservative, liberal or in-between - should be shunning him for this nomination; or at the very least, not considering him.
I am very much looking forward to the day when we can have a country that is neither 'conservative' nor 'liberal' - but some kind of happy-go-lucky mix in between that includes us all. I KNOW that the GOP has people that would make good candidates. Trump is just not one of them.
Most don't want to take a pay cut......
Actually, Kasich is reasonable! Very much so. He's also a real Republican.
As for Trump, he is not a Republican. He is a Democrat pretending to be something else, which is why 65% of Republicans reject him. He is actually getting many of his votes from Democrats and Independents. Once America wakes up and rejects him as the nominee once and for all, he will turn around and support Hillary---just as he always has.
I am going to be watching for that prediction. He is certainly putting on a great show. If he is just the opening act of this election - he's doing a great job. I think he is inspiring people to get their butts out there and vote!! If he accomplishes that - it would not be a bad thing.
Every election cycle that comes along proves to me that most voters live inside of very small politi--maturity bubbles ! You hate Trump because he's a pig , yet praise Hillary who stayed married to one . You hate higher taxes but praise Bernie for his socialist- utopian- free stuff campaign , you don't like Cruz because he's for smaller government , but want less federal restrictions and involvement in state or local controls to be the main topic .
The new political election maturity is shallow , selfish and unvetting ! Entitlements are the new and latest attraction , especially among the younger voters , organized labor , free education , civil liberties over public responsibilities are the new norms.
I personally see no one worthy of voting for , we are simply picking the best of the worse in this cycle.
"The new political election maturity is shallow, selfish and unvetting..." I totally agree with that statement. It has a LOT to do with the 'way we have become' since the Internet and media have started taking advantage of it. We are bombarded with information overload at any given moment; and people either change their minds easily or stubbornly cling to the threads of propaganda that they want to become a reality.
If you think about it, the way people vote has changed since the Internet; and young people have grown up with it. The concept of 'really knowing' a candidate and being able to compare candidates has been replaced by a media circus that does as good a job of twisting things the way media mongrols want things to go. For well over a decade, mosts people have been voting based on their emotions and beliefs that are dumped on their by whichever popular social commentators they like the best - like Rush Limbaugh or Bill Meyer.
I remember back in the day, many people felt comfortable voting for either major party - and the reasons depended on individual platforms of the candidates. These days, people are AFRAID to vote for the 'other party' because conservatives and liberals have both taken things to the extremes in order to 'get the attention' of information-bombarded consituents.
So, these have been our choices: a dark-colored President with radical new ideals that LITERALLY terrified people just because of his name, and a formidable woman who 'remained married to a pig' on the one side; and demoralizing Christian conservatives who insist that this country NOT ONLY needs to be run on their version of a man-written book they call the Bible; but he MUST BE from the 1% crowd.
If there is ever to be a seriously-majority voted in candidate that is acceptable to both sides - the extremist behaviors and ideals need to be dropped. This country will NEVER move forward at this point anymore UNTIL we ALL do that.
But, it is so much more fun to fight and complain about things, isn't it? *WE* each know what is best for this country and no one else does. So people think, "You're stuff is ALWAYS crap and I'm a saint."
The fact that everything is ALWAYS a big huge fight to get the littlest things done is dispicable. Why can't Democrats & Republicans co-exist and mesh the good things into this country from each of their parties?
This has been the biggest stumbling block for America - infighting. Hell, a WAR seems to be the ONLY thing that 'brings us together' sometimes. It's sick.
I am not a Hillary fan, but I am having a hard time getting bent out of shape over the email scandal. Just doesn't get me riled up like it does some people. I even asked my husband to explain why he is so perturbed about it, because I keep thinking I must be missing something. Best I can tell, she used a personal server to send work emails that were marked as classified after the fact. Okay, not smart, but also done by many other high-ranking government employees at one time or another. I know that doesn't make it okay, but I just can't get all fired up about it.
The truth of the email matter that is not the only reason why I get worked up about it is that when she became Secretary of State she signed an agreement acknowledging that State Department correspondence was classified even if it was not marked immediately. The connotation is that she knew it was illegal and did it anyway. It could be construed to mean that she wanted control over all her communications so that if at a later date there would be any recourse on what she said or admitted to in those emails she could erase them. It just so happens a good deal of them were indeed erased.
Controversy follows this woman like a dark star. Could we please have a better representative than this?
Controversy follows all politicians - you have to take the good with the bad because they are all human. I don't vote on who had the most or the biggest controversies - how can I?!!! How can anyone?!!
I vote on who I think would be the best person for the job. Sure, Hillary could have been using email to cover some controversy or conspiracy. But honestly - that would be a pretty stupid way to 'hide' information; because digital information is so easy to be discovered and traced. As we have seen. High-security stuff doesn't usually get leaked via digital means - because it can be traced and manipulated. It is more difficult to do that with a hard copy.
You'll defend her right up until she loses the election and then some
I don't get it either. I'm sure some IT group sets up all the tech stuff for a President or high ranking official, and however it gets done, has to be approved by somebody. I doubt the person does it themselves. In the years before people had computers, they had to communicate by letters, much easier to snoop in that case. It's just another thing the R's are bringing up after numerous investigations that yield nothing. As I said before, possibly on a different thread, Hillary already handed over any classified info a long time ago. Now, because R's are looking for anything against her, they are taking documents after the fact and trying to call them "classified." It's not legal to do that, ex post facto. Nobody told her she was doing something illegal at the time, if it bothered them so much, it's too late. It didn't seem to bother anyone until after she was SOS.
Also, it was obvious she was sick. She looked like Hell and gained a lot of weight, was acting very crabby for her. I can't believe the hatred people feel for people not in their party. I never liked W, but didn't spend half my life trying to dig up garbage on them that wasn't going to stick. His staff were all war criminals who lied about nukes in Iran, and they didn't get half this much criticism. I think W is actually a good person, just took bad advice.
Ilya Sheyman, the executive director of MoveOn.org Political Action, has taken credit for the violence at a cancelled Trump event last night in Chicago. He promised similar violence and disruption will occur at future Trump political events leading up to the election.
The violent protest as I said, people like George Soros is behind this. (Antichrist and BLM groups I mentioned)
The group was founded with the help of the financier George Soros who donated $1.46 million to get the organization rolling. Linda Pritzker of the Hyatt hotel family gave the group a $4 million donation.
MoveOn has consistently functioned as a lobby group for the policies of the Obama administration, including the disaster of Obamacare and the continuation of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the escalation of the war on terror that has turned America into a police and surveillance state. In 2007 it backed a bill trotted out by then Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to continue financing the occupation of Iraq.
The violent demonstration in Chicago on Friday may represent a precursor to the sort of activity the organization will engage in as it tries to “shut down” its political enemies and elect either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.
http://www.infowars.com/soros-funded-mo … n-chicago/
This is NOT Trump's fault. It is to STOP Trump and our Liberty. .
Trumps want to stop the Globalists, ... he loves America!
Illuminati Luciferian, Secret Society Marxists want CONTROL.
Its no secret...Wake up people! They are laughing at us.
ANTI-TRUMP CROWD FLIES A COMMUNIST FLAG DURING PROTEST - Democratic Socialists - more to come!
Did you swallow the red pill or the blue pill?
by Susie Lehto 5 years ago
After THUMPING Clinton in Monday night’s debate, Trump headed to the sunshine state for a YUGE RALLY in Melbourne, Florida. (National poll has Trump 46.7% and Clinton 42.6%: http://www.latimes.com/politics/ ) After Trump's plane landed something magical happened.A gigantic bolt of lightning...
by Miebakagh Fiberesima 3 weeks ago
Despite all the socio-political questions hanging about, how would you picture former president Donald Trump, as a potential candidate in the 2024 piesidentialrace? Can he make it again? Will the GOP give him a second chance?
by Greensleeves Hubs 6 years ago
On 16th September Donald Trump finally came out of the closet and admitted the truth - Barack Obama was born in America. After years of insinuating otherwise, he has finally accepted - but without I gather, any kind of apology - that Obama is American. Well, that's one myth hopefully out of the...
by Scott Belford 6 years ago
If You Are A Woman, Will You Vote for Donald Trump After the 1st Debate and Follow-up Comments?Hillary Clinton finished off the 1st debate skewering Donald Trump for his alleged misogyny. How did that affect your vote?
by Faith Reaper 6 years ago
Just curious. Who would you trust to defend our country against our enemies- Hillary or Trump?I am conducting my own little poll here of sorts, as I am just curious who would you trust to defend our country against our enemies and why - Hillary or Trump?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 6 years ago
WHY would ANYONE even vote for Donald Trump at THIS juncture?
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|