If Hillary runs for President in 2016 will her Benghazi scandal affect your vote

1. 77

   tsadjatkoposted 11 years ago

   If Hillary runs for President in 2016 will her Benghazi scandal affect your vote? Why or why not?
   
   The Butcher of Benghazi, Hillary Rodham Clinton, has blood on her hands: the blood of Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Ty Woods, and Glen Doherty. This according to a scathing report (highly critical of her actions during the Libya event) entitled “Breach of Duty: Hillary Clinton and Catastrophic Failure in Benghazi,” put together by OPSEC, a group of former special forces and intelligence operatives, the same group that produced the viral documentary Dishonorable Disclosures. Is Hillary going to be able to continue hiding from the fact that she did nothing in Benghazi or do you love her anyway?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 78

   Wesman Todd Shawposted 11 years ago

   I would literally vote for Michael Vick before voting for Mrs. Clinton, the communist.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      tsadjatkoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      At least Vick fessed up when he was caught and served his time. Hil liar y Clinton's not the first commie responsible for the murder of innocent patriots.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      IDONOposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Has George W and The Republican Party fessed up to why thousands of innocent patriots died in Iraq over WMDs that didn't exist? Where's that full disclosure? Republicans are masters at the art of deflection. Hillary and Republicans are all pathetic.

      replyreport
   3. 77

      tsadjatkoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Oh you mean the war that most of the Democrats voted for and agreed there were WMDs? Talk about deflection, the dems were for the war in Iraq before they were against it and all agreed you can keep your health care plan, oh until you actually can't.

      replyreport
3. 0

   Old Poolmanposted 11 years ago

   I would not vote for Hillary if she was the only candidate on the ballot.
   I would hope the voters remember Benghazi at election time, but we still have many who have never heard of Benghazi so it would mean nothing to them.  They don't talk about things like Benghazi on the cartoon channel or the the Honey Boo Boo show.
   I would hope she doesn't get past the primaries, but I think she is almost guaranteed a place in the lineup.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      bn9900posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Hit the nail on the head

      replyreport
4. 77

   bn9900posted 11 years ago

   If you have a (D) behind your name. I will never vote for you. Democrats are sucking the life out of this country, and will kill it. So in answer to your question, Hillary will have a lot of questions to answer, unfortunately, the liberal media will not report anything, and thus the uninformed will vote in another nation killer, god forbid we vote against the first woman to be a US president, just like we felt in 2008, and look how that turned out.

   replyreport
5. 85

   tsmogposted 11 years ago

   I dun'no? Who is she running against? As to do I like that event or the decision making process the answer is no.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      IDONOposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      If I get you right, in any election, it bothers me to see one side tear down the other without declaring that they have a better alternative. Tell me why I should vote for you; not why I shouldn't vote for the other person. That's lip service.

      replyreport
   2. 85

      tsmogposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I think we agree. I am tiring off the slamming as you suggested. It is like watching the WWF on a Thur evening. I would rather hear the solutions and their short term gains and long term returns. Presenting problems does not resolve / solve? I dun'no

      replyreport
   3. 77

      tsadjatkoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Your answer to the question"If Hillary runs for President in 2016 will her Benghazi scandal affect your vote?" is - no - is it not?And your reason why is that Benghazi is equivalent to slamming?I doubt you'd feel that way if it was your son dead!

      replyreport
   4. 60

      IDONOposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      tsadjatko: What you tried to do to tsmog's analogy was well...just sad. I won't waste letters on explaining why. I like a good, heated discussion, but I'm not so desperate to win that I would embarrass myself like that. This isn't personal. Settle.

      replyreport
   5. 77

      tsadjatkoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      That's your pat reply whenever you have lost the argument, you run and hide and seem to think innuendo wins the day - you are the pathetic one. Be honest, if it was your son would you be supporting Hillary or begging for some answers?

      replyreport
   6. 60

      IDONOposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      In all honesty, My immediate priority would be to find out WHAT failed to cause this so it didn't happen to others in the future. Not spend precious time worried about who to blame and cursing a cover up. That won't save lives. Blame comes second.

      replyreport
   7. 77

      tsadjatkoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It's obvious from your statement you never had any children (if you do they have my condolences) You have simply repeated the administrations talking point on this(which is part of their covering up the truth) You should try thinking for yourself.

      replyreport
   8. 60

      IDONOposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      tsadjatko: You are a disgusting excuse for a man. What's next? Yo MaMa? My sons and our relationship is none of your pathetic business. I have absolutely nothing else to say to you. I will delete anything of yours that shows up on my posts.

      replyreport
   9. 77

      tsadjatkoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Name calling and a meaningless threat - no surprise here, and I never have and never would post anything you could delete because I know you'd censor anyone you lose an argument to. Now run and hide instead of ever answering the original question.

      replyreport
   10. 60

       IDONOposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       okay tsadjatko: You win: I lose. I bow to your wisdom, compassion and superior intellect......... NOW GO AWAY!!!!!!!

       replyreport
   11. 77

       tsadjatkoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       hmmmm sounds like something my grandchild might say when she has reluctantly learned a lesson. I hope you learned a lesson here - that being admitting you're wrong is the key to dignified humility, although you have tried your best to undignify it.

       replyreport
   12. 60

       IDONOposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       tsadjatko: Read again, oh miserable one. I said that you won. I didn't say I was wrong. Again, let it rest or go pick a fight with someone else. I'm done with you. No more replies. I'm sorry I bothered with you this long.

       replyreport
   13. 77

       tsadjatkoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       You now have said you are done three times,yet you keep coming back only to get in the last word.People who do that are worried they be overruled or made to look foolish & feel if they get the last word then they win,even though you say I win.

       replyreport
6. 60

   IDONOposted 11 years ago

   I really can't answer this until the Republican Party shows me a viable candidate that has anymore to offer than she does. Sure, Benghazi is a tragedy that could have possibly been avoided and certainly should not be covered up.  But it's one issue among many, both domestic and abroad. This particular issue could have possibly been much more effective at election time had Foxnews and other Republican media hadn't run it into the ground so much, for so long. Now, the general public is just plain tired of hearing thousands of people hashing over the same thing again and again. The general public is not totally stupid either. Many realize that the Republican presidential campaign has been running since Obama was re-elected. They also know that it's not just a group of everyday Americans calling for Hillary's head. It's Republicans. Again, the Republican Party has put itself in the situation where the American public is questioning it's motives. Are they patriotic or political? As long as people have that question in their mind, the vote yea or nay is a moot topic. Issues other than Benghazi will be the deciding factors. And yes, I understand the seriousness of the Benghazi tragedy and the pain of the families that lost loved ones. So please don't tell me anymore how terrible it was. I know. If the Republican Party exploits these family members for selfish political reasons, they won't be worthy of being elected to student council at their local middle school.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      tsadjatkoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      WhyamInot surprised, IDONO made up an excuse to vote for the woman with the blood of innocent patriots on her hands.Allowing the dead's families to ask for the truth is worse than the person responsible for their deaths.Only a liberal wud go there

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Old Poolmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yep, that darn Fox News just would not go along with the cover up and that really messed things up.  Had Fox behaved themselves like the rest of the media, Benghazi would have been forgotten by now.  The truth will never be made public.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      IDONOposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      tsadjatko: As usual, you just don't get it. You said it yourself. Let the families decide. Not some TV station or political party. After this next election, we'll see if Republicans are so concerned or if they will move on to the next scandal.

      replyreport
   4. 77

      tsadjatkoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The question isn't about republicans, it's about whether you'd vote for a lying Clnton who's incompetence is responsible for the unecccessary murder of patriots & her coverup (a video did it) for election purposes. Only you'd change the subject.

      replyreport
   5. 58

      Writer Chuckposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Like I said Hillary wouldn't get my vote
      no way, no how! Just name one thing that Hillary has done as secretary of State other than log mileage.  She is not responsible for bringing any two countries together for peace sake. Her name is on Benghazi.

      replyreport
7. 58

   Writer Chuckposted 11 years ago

   To be fair Hillary wouldn't have had my vote under any circumstances anyway. I would like to cast my vote to publish her picture in the dictionary next to the word Liberal.  She along with Barack Obama are perfect examples of why people think liberalism is a form of brain damage.
   
   Chuck

   replyreport
   1. 77

      tsadjatkoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      "To be fair" I can see where that is fair, after all it is only fair not to want to vote for lying, paranoid enabler, http://tsadjatko.hubpages.com/question/ … swer731924

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Old Poolmanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Hillary is the poster girl of the twisted power hungry individuals who represent us today.  Our government is suffering from a terminal illness.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      IDONOposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Liberals or Conservatives, to the extreme, are both brain damage. Somewhere in the middle is freedom. Too liberal becomes immoral. Too conservative becomes cognitive dissonance. Problem is, division is beyond checks and balances. Unification is gone.

      replyreport
   4. 77

      tsadjatkoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      There is no middle with Democrats, as even the President's policy is it's his way or the highway. The right is principled, to give up your principles to live in the middle is equivalent to Solomon saying ok cut the baby in half, it doesn't work.

      replyreport
   5. 77

      bn9900posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Democrats can't see the middle as they are so far to the left, they are beyond the earth curvature.They may turn around and say the right is the same but  at least the right has morals,and are willing to meet in the middle, the left cant even do that

      replyreport
8. 74

   lone77starposted 11 years ago

   Both heads of the Corporate Party beast have blood on their fangs -- both Demopublicans and Republicrats. Clinton is no different. They all suck up to the teet of evil. It's almost comical to watch this farce play out.
   
   The charade of politics will not last much longer.
   
   I plan not to vote, because the entire system is corrupt. You only had to see the actions at both party's presidential conventions last time to know that voting has been replaced with the script. The voice of the individual has been silenced. Real candidates have been sidelined or silenced. Real delegates have been kidnapped, like the busload of Ron Paul supporters who might have affected the GOP platform vote in 2012, driven around and around the convention center until the vote was over.
   
   I'm not voting for any of the corrupt puppets of the New World Order. For me the illusion has been broken. The physics of 9/11 is understood. I see the corruption on so many levels and I give up any interest in the greedy politics of this world.
   
   I sincerely doubt that any good person will ever again make it to the White House. The doors have been closed. Only puppets operate within the hallowed halls of the Corporate Party.
   
   I may vote again when the upcoming storm is done and only if it's not electronic.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Dont Taze Me Broposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      "the physics of 911"? are you one of those 911 conspiracy kooks or do you mean "We See Conspiracies That Don't Exist The Physics of 9/11" by MANUEL GARCIA, Jr. ? http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/11/28/ … s-of-9-11/

      replyreport
9. 77

   tsadjatkoposted 10 years ago

   
   
   Does a Tiger change it's stripes?
   There she goes again By DICK MORRIS ...
   The latest iteration of her wish to downplay her wealth so as to be just plain folk was her bald assertions to Diane Sawyer that she and Bill were "dead broke" and "in debt" when she left the White House, struggling to "you know, piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, Chelsea's education, you know, it was not easy."
   
   Some dead broke! Some "not easy"! Consider this:
   
   Her joint tax return with Bill for 2001 showed a $16,165,110 income for her first year out of the White House.
   
   Even before they left the White House, their joint income for 2000 was $359,000, scarcely in the "dead broke" category, particularly when you consider that the Clintons had none of the normal expenses that the rest of us do, such as housing, cars, child care, insurance, electricity, landscaping, healthcare -- all covered by the taxpayers. All they had to pay for was dry cleaning, food and college tuition for Chelsea.
   
   Hillary signed a book contract with an $8 million advance in the closing weeks of Bill's presidency and Bill inked a $15 million deal at about the same time. She got more than $2 million of this in 2001. Is that dead broke?
   
   The Clintons bought a house in September of 1999 in Chappaqua, N.Y., for $1.7 million. In December of 2000, they also purchased a $2.85 million house in Washington, D.C. before Bill left office. Do people who are dead broke and in debt do this?
   
   Chelsea had graduated from college by the end of Bill's term and her tuition for graduate work at Oxford for the year 2001 could not have been too burdensome for a family that would earn $16 million that year.
   
   So why does Hillary Clinton do this? Why make up stories of poverty when they were verifiable multimillionaires?
   
   The former first lady has always felt the need to adjust the truth of her extraordinary circumstances -- up or down -- to suit her political needs of the moment. She wants to be just like us. So, for example, she's spoken of the burdens of providing child care for Chelsea, even as the Clintons had the luxuries of an extensive staff of taxpayer-funded state police and babysitters during Chelsea's early years and a full White House and Secret Service staff afterwards.
   
   With Hil liar y Clinton, it is not just the big things that she tries to spin: Benghazi, the prisoner exchange and so forth. It's also the little things that she misrepresents, landing under sniper fire  ... and that gives her game away.

   replyreport
10. 58

    mio cidposted 10 years ago

    No it will not affect my vote.And it will not affect the vote of the great majority of voters ,because unlike Obama who has been repeatedly bulldozed by the opposition ,the Clintons, thank god,  are the dirtiest players in the game and will manage to make Benghazi a non-factor.

    replyreport
    1. 77

       tsadjatkoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       "the dirtiest players in the game" That's the best thing you have to say about Hiliary?She campaigned for these high-profile defeats: Ms. Grimes,KY and Senate candidates Kay Hagan, NC and Bruce Braley, IA. Slick Willie was clobbered in AR.

       replyreport
    2. 58

       mio cidposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       This is a Pyrrhic victory for the GOP .It only ensures that Hillary will win the White House in 2016,,the democrats will take the senate back for sure and maybe even the House .

       replyreport
    3. 77

       tsadjatkoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       News flash, Hiliary's not going to run, mark my words. More coming on Benghazi and electorate, especially the democrats, is fed up with their own incompetence.

       replyreport
    4. 58

       mio cidposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       I guess time will tell who's right. we'll see .I'm pretty sure I'll be voting for Hillary in 2016.

       replyreport