Which candidate do American's despise more?

[barbara]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

This is exactly what I have been thinking.



I had a man recently yell at me that "They've had about a dozen hearings against that murdering bitch!".



But, have "they" actually proven anything?



Where are the convictions?



And, when I consider who "they" is. It's the Republican Party. Gee, I wonder what their motivation could possibly be?



I don't care how many kangaroo court "hearings" you hold, until you actually prove something you have nothing. The number of hearings held doesn't establish guilt, it only proves the determination of a politically motivated organization.

Well stated.

[Boreas]

My thing about Hillary has nothing to do with the 25 year Republican smear campaign against her. It's her politics. She is no progressive. She'll appoint corporatists to the bench, continue her dubious record of "accomplishments" in foreign policy and step up our military involvement in the Middle East and provocative behavior in Eastern Europe. It's important to remember that the Neo Conservative movement wasn't established by right wingers. On the contrary, its founders were all Democrats. Hillary and Bill fit the mold perfectly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

[68custom]

so what else is new? I for one am used to voting for the candidate I despise less, which in this case is Hillary. having said that the GOP has been chomping at the bit for decades to ruin the Clinton's but they are smart enough to avoid being convicted. just accused.

[merrylander]

Smart enough? Or maybe it is that their accusers (thr GOP) don't have any proof because their accusations are mainly political bull shit.

[donquixote99]

You know, 'expediency' has it's points. GWB went into Iraq feeling 'great moral clarity.' A more pragmatic person might have asked harder questions about how it's all going to work out.

[Rajoo]

Seems like with the Clinton's, scandals and shady dealings are routine.

Bill Clinton aides used tax dollars to subsidize foundation, private email support

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...t-teneo-227613

[barbara]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

Seems like with the Clinton's, scandals and shady dealings are routine.



Bill Clinton aides used tax dollars to subsidize foundation, private email support



http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...t-teneo-227613

According to the linked article, nothing illegal occurred.


Just another attention grabbing headline for those who don't bother reading the whole thing.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by barbara

According to the linked article, nothing illegal occurred.


Just another attention grabbing headline for those who don't bother reading the whole thing.

Agreed, nothing illegal and I did read it in its' entirety. But these shenanigans by the Clinton's are all too common and why they contribute to the trust issues with Hillary.

If I conducted my business like the Clinton's, the IRS would be auditing me annually. They are what we call a shady business and nothing is ever clean or straightforward.

[barbara]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

Agreed, nothing illegal and I did read it in its' entirety. But these shenanigans by the Clinton's are all too common and why they contribute to the trust issues with Hillary.



If I conducted my business like the Clinton's, the IRS would be auditing me annually. They are what we call a shady business and nothing is ever clean or straightforward.

There is no doubt they push the envelope as far as legally allowed. Nothing wrong with that. Lots of people in politics and business do the same.

The Clinton antics pale in comparison to the shady and illegal business dealings of Trump.

[CarlV]

Originally Posted by barbara

There is no doubt they push the envelope as far as legally allowed. Nothing wrong with that. Lots of people in politics and business do the same.

The Clinton antics pale in comparison to the shady and illegal business dealings of Trump.

QFT

Carl