Hillary For President

[icenine]

Originally Posted by djv8ga

The old woman is gonna throw in the towel & cooperate with L.E.
http://news.yahoo.com/us-official-fb...-election.html

Is your wife or mother an "old woman" too?

[Rajoo]

Hillary did not break any laws, period. The law the Congressional Republicans claim she broke was the middle finger she gave them for their request to turn over her emails from the private server. Technically this is breaking the law, not complying to the subpoena, but guess what, everyone does it. Who in the world would show any respect to this Congress?

Now that the Justice Department is asking for it, she is complying.

Edit: In fact it will be quite a spectacle if Issa and company were to haul Mrs. Clinton on a contempt of congress charge. She then can show her contempt in person on TV and they then would be handing over the presidency to her.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by djv8ga

"Earlier on Tuesday, the inspector general for the intelligence community told members of Congress that Mrs. Clinton had “top secret” information — the highest classification of government intelligence — in two emails among the 40 from the private account that the State Department has allowed him to review." - NY Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/us...ment.html?_r=0

Just because an IG tells a bunch of Congressman something does not mean it is a criminal investigation. Last I heard on the news this morning was that there were two emails that were NOT classified when she received them but NOW are. Huge difference.

[catswiththum]

It is beyond me why what I assume are intelligent folk rush to defend this deceitful harpy.

Are we now so politically indoctrinated we march in lock step and abandon years of our experience and common sense if the party says "this is your frontrunner?"

If given the choice, is this who you really would have chosen to run for the Democratic Presidential nomination?

I hope not.

[Boreas]

It's beyond me why what I assume are intelligent folk have such a visceral antipathy toward Hillary.

It started back with the whole "Hillarycare" thing, continued through all the faux scandals during the Clinton administration, things like the Vince Foster "murder" and Whitewater, and now we have Bengazi and the classified emails that weren't classified when Sec. Clinton received them.

[catswiththum]

Originally Posted by Boreas

It's beyond me why what I assume are intelligent folk have such a visceral antipathy toward Hillary.

It started back with the whole "Hillarycare" thing, continued through all the faux scandals during the Clinton administration, things like the Vince Foster "murder" and Whitewater, and now we have Bengazi and the classified emails that weren't classified when Sec. Clinton received them.

If you do not recognize a pattern of deceit, a dearth of accomplishment, and a disregard for the law if it suits her own ends, there is no point discussing it.

I don't hate her - she simply hasn't done very much worthwhile, and most of what she has is a mess still being cleaned up.

There are much more qualified Democratic candidates out there - picking one because of name recognition (same goes for Bush) is not an intelligent method of nominating someone for the Presidency.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by catswiththum

It is beyond me why what I assume are intelligent folk rush to defend this deceitful harpy.

Are we now so politically indoctrinated we march in lock step and abandon years of our experience and common sense if the party says "this is your frontrunner?"

If given the choice, is this who you really would have chosen to run for the Democratic Presidential nomination?

I hope not.

Is your wife a harpy also?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by catswiththum

If you do not recognize a pattern of deceit, a dearth of accomplishment, and a disregard for the law if it suits her own ends, there is no point discussing it.

I don't hate her - she simply hasn't done very much worthwhile, and most of what she has is a mess still being cleaned up.

There are much more qualified Democratic candidates out there - picking one because of name recognition (same goes for Bush) is not an intelligent method of nominating someone for the Presidency.

Would you care to delineate this pattern of deceit?

What specific messes are you referring to?

As to her qualifications, there really aren't many people with the breadth of experience in government that she possesses, from being an attorney for the Watergate Commission on up to being Secretary of State with lots of stuff in between.

True, there are several Democrats I'd prefer to see get the nomination but not on the basis of their experience.

[catswiththum]

Originally Posted by icenine

Is your wife a harpy also?

Actually, she is quite lovely, and has never lied to Congress or the American people and has much greater qualification/experience for the position she holds than Clinton does for the one she aspires to.

[icenine]

I like Sanders, and if he is the nominee I will vote for him. However for him to be successful you would need large Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress.

Hillary would be the better and more pragmatic choice in a split government.
Plus I believe she can garner more Latino voters than Sanders.