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.
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?
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.
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.
*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.
Yes, cause Trump shows so much restraint. The dude is breaking federal election rules on fundraising as we speak.
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?
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?
Please tell me how he is racist - facts please, not media rehash
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.
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
We will agree to disagree with how that comes off, but most Republican politicians sided with me on this one.
Mitch McConnell is a RINO? If he is, there are no Republicans.
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.
Sorry, I don't agree with you on this one.
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.
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 ?
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.
"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 !
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.
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 .
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.
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.
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.
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 !
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.
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 !
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.
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.
"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.
"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.
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."
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.
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.
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 .
Someone remind me what Bush, Jr did again to be so accomplished?
by Jack Lee2 weeks ago
This new book confirms everything the right has been claiming about the DNC.What do democrats do now?
by Susie Lehto12 months ago
The New York Times is one of the mainstream news outlets that has gone further left-wing than the others with out-right lies, so I am wondering how they will cover this story. They cannot keep covering up for the...
by Susie Lehto3 weeks ago
Judge Andrew Napolitano said, “The significance is an FBI acknowledgement that Huma Abedin, Mrs. Anthony Weiner, when she had a top security clearance as the number two assistant to Hillary Clinton when Hillary was...
by Credence221 months ago
Politics are exciting to watch, it always fascinated me as to who the voter selects for their candidate and why. There has been a trend over the last 5 or 6 years of populist movements either to right in the case of the...
by Catherine Mostly20 months ago
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...
by My Esoteric13 months ago
There were two distinct debating styles on display last night on Sept 26, 2016.How do you describe what in on?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.