Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Really?? First of, as the DNC hack showed Putin has a clear preference to what candidate he wants to win. Secondly Putin has been under pressure from Obama and Europe by trade sanctions, that's the real world politics, not what you see as the truth, through partisan glasses. Policies and cooperative relationships that are put under scrutiny when Trump opens his mouth without any real knowledge of international politics.Putin is emboldened every time he sees a picture of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.You think Putin interpreted it as sarcastic? He emboldens a leader of a nation which has territorial ambitions by saying that, and emboldens him some more when calling NATO obsolete. America is broke but still spends about the same amount on defense as the next 10 countries combined, so claiming they are not , as they are the biggest player on the NATO table is ridiculous. Actions AND words have consequences. So again what is the better choice? A candidate who gets this simple fact or one who doesn't and who has proven to not be able to let his ego go, even if it is in his best interest.The NATO agreement needs to be renegotiated. America is broke. And Trump didn't call for Russia to hack Clinton's emails. Her server has long been retired, so there's nothing to hack. He did ask, sarcastically, for them to produce any hacked emails they might have. Only a brain-dead moron would claim he said hack her server.Yup might even be true. My question is 2-fold. You accuse Clinton of, if I'm reading it correctly, being stupid (possible illegal). In the meantime, the candidate for the republican ticket, called NATO obsolete and questioned the US honoring it's commitments to NATO ( really stupid). Called on Russia to hack Clinton's E-mails, ( possibly treason). And called for assassination of an elected president ( possibly illegal and for sure immoral). So which one of these choices is the worst? And why the double standard?Well, the problem with that argument is Hillary didn't have any legal right to official State Department documents.....since she only used that server to do all of her State Department communication. She couldn't legally destroy them.
Just sayin.....
Really?? First of, as the DNC hack showed Putin has a clear preference to what candidate he wants to win. Secondly Putin has been under pressure from Obama and Europe by trade sanctions, that's the real world politics, not what you see as the truth, through partisan glasses.Putin is emboldened every time he sees a picture of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.You think Putin interpreted it as sarcastic? He emboldens a leader of a nation which has territorial ambitions by saying that, and emboldens him some more when calling NATO obsolete. America is broke but still spends about the same amount on defense as the next 10 countries combined, so claiming they are not , as they are the biggest player on the NATO table is ridiculous. Actions AND words have consequences. So again what is the better choice? A candidate who gets this simple fact or one who doesn't and who has proven to not be able to let his ego go, even if it is in his best interest.The NATO agreement needs to be renegotiated. America is broke. And Trump didn't call for Russia to hack Clinton's emails. Her server has long been retired, so there's nothing to hack. He did ask, sarcastically, for them to produce any hacked emails they might have. Only a brain-dead moron would claim he said hack her server.Yup might even be true. My question is 2-fold. You accuse Clinton of, if I'm reading it correctly, being stupid (possible illegal). In the meantime, the candidate for the republican ticket, called NATO obsolete and questioned the US honoring it's commitments to NATO ( really stupid). Called on Russia to hack Clinton's E-mails, ( possibly treason). And called for assassination of an elected president ( possibly illegal and for sure immoral). So which one of these choices is the worst? And why the double standard?Well, the problem with that argument is Hillary didn't have any legal right to official State Department documents.....since she only used that server to do all of her State Department communication. She couldn't legally destroy them.
Just sayin.....
I have a major problem actually with the entire party finance system. It's a system that invites corruption. But that's not the point I'm making. I don't like Clinton, but she does have a clear grasp on international politics. Something Trump has shown to not have.Really?? First of, as the DNC hack showed Putin has a clear preference to what candidate he wants to win. Secondly Putin has been under pressure from Obama and Europe by trade sanctions, that's the real world politics, not what you see as the truth, through partisan glasses. Policies and cooperative relationships that are put under scrutiny when Trump opens his mouth without any real knowledge of international politics.Putin is emboldened every time he sees a picture of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.You think Putin interpreted it as sarcastic? He emboldens a leader of a nation which has territorial ambitions by saying that, and emboldens him some more when calling NATO obsolete. America is broke but still spends about the same amount on defense as the next 10 countries combined, so claiming they are not , as they are the biggest player on the NATO table is ridiculous. Actions AND words have consequences. So again what is the better choice? A candidate who gets this simple fact or one who doesn't and who has proven to not be able to let his ego go, even if it is in his best interest.The NATO agreement needs to be renegotiated. America is broke. And Trump didn't call for Russia to hack Clinton's emails. Her server has long been retired, so there's nothing to hack. He did ask, sarcastically, for them to produce any hacked emails they might have. Only a brain-dead moron would claim he said hack her server.Yup might even be true. My question is 2-fold. You accuse Clinton of, if I'm reading it correctly, being stupid (possible illegal). In the meantime, the candidate for the republican ticket, called NATO obsolete and questioned the US honoring it's commitments to NATO ( really stupid). Called on Russia to hack Clinton's E-mails, ( possibly treason). And called for assassination of an elected president ( possibly illegal and for sure immoral). So which one of these choices is the worst? And why the double standard?
So you blame the messenger not the message?
You have no problem with all these shady foreigners giving millions upon millions of dollars to the clinton foundation while she was Secretary of state and now running for president?
Sounds to me she is bought and sold to the highest bidder.
Really?? First of, as the DNC hack showed Putin has a clear preference to what candidate he wants to win. Secondly Putin has been under pressure from Obama and Europe by trade sanctions, that's the real world politics, not what you see as the truth, through partisan glasses.Putin is emboldened every time he sees a picture of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.You think Putin interpreted it as sarcastic? He emboldens a leader of a nation which has territorial ambitions by saying that, and emboldens him some more when calling NATO obsolete. America is broke but still spends about the same amount on defense as the next 10 countries combined, so claiming they are not , as they are the biggest player on the NATO table is ridiculous. Actions AND words have consequences. So again what is the better choice? A candidate who gets this simple fact or one who doesn't and who has proven to not be able to let his ego go, even if it is in his best interest.The NATO agreement needs to be renegotiated. America is broke. And Trump didn't call for Russia to hack Clinton's emails. Her server has long been retired, so there's nothing to hack. He did ask, sarcastically, for them to produce any hacked emails they might have. Only a brain-dead moron would claim he said hack her server.Yup might even be true. My question is 2-fold. You accuse Clinton of, if I'm reading it correctly, being stupid (possible illegal). In the meantime, the candidate for the republican ticket, called NATO obsolete and questioned the US honoring it's commitments to NATO ( really stupid). Called on Russia to hack Clinton's E-mails, ( possibly treason). And called for assassination of an elected president ( possibly illegal and for sure immoral). So which one of these choices is the worst? And why the double standard?I have a major problem actually with the entire party finance system. It's a system that invites corruption. But that's not the point I'm making. I don't like Clinton, but she does have a clear grasp on international politics. Something Trump has shown to not have.Really?? First of, as the DNC hack showed Putin has a clear preference to what candidate he wants to win. Secondly Putin has been under pressure from Obama and Europe by trade sanctions, that's the real world politics, not what you see as the truth, through partisan glasses. Policies and cooperative relationships that are put under scrutiny when Trump opens his mouth without any real knowledge of international politics.Putin is emboldened every time he sees a picture of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.You think Putin interpreted it as sarcastic? He emboldens a leader of a nation which has territorial ambitions by saying that, and emboldens him some more when calling NATO obsolete. America is broke but still spends about the same amount on defense as the next 10 countries combined, so claiming they are not , as they are the biggest player on the NATO table is ridiculous. Actions AND words have consequences. So again what is the better choice? A candidate who gets this simple fact or one who doesn't and who has proven to not be able to let his ego go, even if it is in his best interest.The NATO agreement needs to be renegotiated. America is broke. And Trump didn't call for Russia to hack Clinton's emails. Her server has long been retired, so there's nothing to hack. He did ask, sarcastically, for them to produce any hacked emails they might have. Only a brain-dead moron would claim he said hack her server.
So you blame the messenger not the message?
You have no problem with all these shady foreigners giving millions upon millions of dollars to the clinton foundation while she was Secretary of state and now running for president?
Sounds to me she is bought and sold to the highest bidder.
DONE - GOING TO JAIL!Hillary's problems involve more than what the FBI has uncovered. Judicial Watch is breaking news with new documents they have obtained:
Judicialwatch.org
'New Abedin Emails Reveal Hillary Clinton State Department Gave Special Access to Top Clinton Foundation Donors'
"Crown Prince of Bahrain Forced to Go Through Foundation to See Clinton, after Pledging $32 Million to Clinton Global Initiative
Hollywood Executive Casey Wasserman, Slimfast Mogul Daniel Abraham, Controversial Appointee Rajiv Fernando also among Clinton Foundation Donors Granted Special Favors from Clinton State Department"
"(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released 725 pages of new State Department documents, including previously unreleased email exchanges in which former Hillary Clinton’s top aide Huma Abedin provided influential Clinton Foundation donors special, expedited access to the secretary of state. In many instances, the preferential treatment provided to donors was at the specific request of Clinton Foundation executive Douglas Band.
The new documents included 20 Hillary Clinton email exchanges not previously turned over to the State Department, bringing the known total to date to 191 of new Clinton emails (not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department). These records further appear to contradict statements by Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department."
BUSTED!
A couple of things. The obvious, what the congressman did using back channels and undermining the official decision of the administration I find tantamount to treason and I don't consider the word of the spokesperson of one of the most ruthless dictators of the latter half of the 20th century as particularly reliable. Secondly Clinton by advocating intervention went with past experiences and as current events in Syria show, dictators targeting their own populace to keep power isn't exactly unheard of. She also wasn't the only person to do so as your article showed since she had support for her position both internally and internationally. Their is a clear difference between a knowledgeable person making choices that hindsight might critisise and. Trump claiming NATO is obsolete because it plays well with his supporters not taking into consideration, the consequences of that statement if he would win the elections. The first 1 is a judgement call, the second one is simple ignorance.Really?? First of, as the DNC hack showed Putin has a clear preference to what candidate he wants to win. Secondly Putin has been under pressure from Obama and Europe by trade sanctions, that's the real world politics, not what you see as the truth, through partisan glasses.Putin is emboldened every time he sees a picture of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.You think Putin interpreted it as sarcastic? He emboldens a leader of a nation which has territorial ambitions by saying that, and emboldens him some more when calling NATO obsolete. America is broke but still spends about the same amount on defense as the next 10 countries combined, so claiming they are not , as they are the biggest player on the NATO table is ridiculous. Actions AND words have consequences. So again what is the better choice? A candidate who gets this simple fact or one who doesn't and who has proven to not be able to let his ego go, even if it is in his best interest.The NATO agreement needs to be renegotiated. America is broke. And Trump didn't call for Russia to hack Clinton's emails. Her server has long been retired, so there's nothing to hack. He did ask, sarcastically, for them to produce any hacked emails they might have. Only a brain-dead moron would claim he said hack her server.I have a major problem actually with the entire party finance system. It's a system that invites corruption. But that's not the point I'm making. I don't like Clinton, but she does have a clear grasp on international politics. Something Trump has shown to not have.Really?? First of, as the DNC hack showed Putin has a clear preference to what candidate he wants to win. Secondly Putin has been under pressure from Obama and Europe by trade sanctions, that's the real world politics, not what you see as the truth, through partisan glasses. Policies and cooperative relationships that are put under scrutiny when Trump opens his mouth without any real knowledge of international politics.Putin is emboldened every time he sees a picture of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.You think Putin interpreted it as sarcastic? He emboldens a leader of a nation which has territorial ambitions by saying that, and emboldens him some more when calling NATO obsolete. America is broke but still spends about the same amount on defense as the next 10 countries combined, so claiming they are not , as they are the biggest player on the NATO table is ridiculous. Actions AND words have consequences. So again what is the better choice? A candidate who gets this simple fact or one who doesn't and who has proven to not be able to let his ego go, even if it is in his best interest.
So you blame the messenger not the message?
You have no problem with all these shady foreigners giving millions upon millions of dollars to the clinton foundation while she was Secretary of state and now running for president?
Sounds to me she is bought and sold to the highest bidder.
A clear grasp? You mean when she was so gun hole to attack Libya that the Pentagon and her own party tried to go behind her back and stop it?
Hillary Clinton undercut on Libya war by Pentagon and Congress, secret tapes reveal
If she was bush Jr. We would of never heard the end of it.
There was no reason for that war what so ever.
I didn't see the email where Putin prefers one or the other. I would imagine he prefers Trump because he has expressed interest in working with Russia to defeat ISIS and Hillary shoots from the hip. And she has a lot of hip. But what does Putin want that he hasn't gotten so far? obama is on the losing side every time.First of, as the DNC hack showed Putin has a clear preference to what candidate he wants to win. Secondly Putin has been under pressure from Obama and Europe by trade sanctions, that's the real world politics, not what you see as the truth, through partisan glasses. Policies and cooperative relationships that are put under scrutiny when Trump opens his mouth without any real knowledge of international politics.
We are no longer is a cold war with the USSR and many NATO nations aren't chipping in. The enemy is no longer nations but multi-national organizations, something NATO isn't designed to deal with, so it needs an overhaul. Doing the same thing and expecting different results is something only a liberal would embrace.Trump claiming NATO is obsolete because it plays well with his supporters not taking into consideration, the consequences of that statement if he would win the elections. The first 1 is a judgement call, the second one is simple ignorance.
Recognition of the Crimea a free hand in the Ukraine for starters. Not being put under trade sanctions for another lol. And claiming Clinton shoots from the hip when your candidate is Trump is probably the most ironic thing I've heard on this forum today.I didn't see the email where Putin prefers one or the other. I would imagine he prefers Trump because he has expressed interest in working with Russia to defeat ISIS and Hillary shoots from the hip. And she has a lot of hip. But what does Putin want that he hasn't gotten so far? obama is on the losing side every time.First of, as the DNC hack showed Putin has a clear preference to what candidate he wants to win. Secondly Putin has been under pressure from Obama and Europe by trade sanctions, that's the real world politics, not what you see as the truth, through partisan glasses. Policies and cooperative relationships that are put under scrutiny when Trump opens his mouth without any real knowledge of international politics.
I'll stick with plan A. Laughing at you rubes every time you say she's done. It's been working pretty well for 40 years.
There is no double standard. Asking Russia to hack someone's emails isn't treason unless there is classified information in those emails. We were assured there is none. Perhaps you're saying there is? And no one called for the assassination of an elected president, unless you're talking about George Bush. So, now that the deflection is neutered, back to the subject at hand.Yup might even be true. My question is 2-fold. You accuse Clinton of, if I'm reading it correctly, being stupid (possible illegal). In the meantime, the candidate for the republican ticket, called NATO obsolete and questioned the US honoring it's commitments to NATO ( really stupid). Called on Russia to hack Clinton's E-mails, ( possibly treason). And called for assassination of an elected president ( possibly illegal and for sure immoral). So which one of these choices is the worst? And why the double standard?Well, the problem with that argument is Hillary didn't have any legal right to official State Department documents.....since she only used that server to do all of her State Department communication. She couldn't legally destroy them.When you say something is breaking it might be good to not post old news. This was in the article to btw.FBI uncovers 14,900 more documents in Clinton email probe
The FBI’s year-long investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server uncovered 14,900 emails and documents from her time as secretary of state that had not been disclosed by her attorneys, and a federal judge on Monday pressed the State Department to begin releasing emails sooner than mid-October as it planned."
Should Hillary WITHDRAW from the presidential campaign?
.
"In announcing the FBI’s findings in July, Comey said investigators found no evidence that the emails it found “were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.” Like many users, Clinton periodically deleted emails, or they were purged when devices were changed."
Just sayin.....
Nope. NATO is a bad deal for the US. We're stuck with paying for the defense of countries that can afford to pay for their own defense. Only an ignorant progressive sycophant would think otherwise. Trump is spot on with this but your handlers are telling you he's wrong in a silly attempt to make him look unqualified.A couple of things. The obvious, what the congressman did using back channels and undermining the official decision of the administration I find tantamount to treason and I don't consider the word of the spokesperson of one of the most ruthless dictators of the latter half of the 20th century as particularly reliable. Secondly Clinton by advocating intervention went with past experiences and as current events in Syria show, dictators targeting their own populace to keep power isn't exactly unheard of. She also wasn't the only person to do so as your article showed since she had support for her position both internally and internationally. Their is a clear difference between a knowledgeable person making choices that hindsight might critisise and. Trump claiming NATO is obsolete because it plays well with his supporters not taking into consideration, the consequences of that statement if he would win the elections. The first 1 is a judgement call, the second one is simple ignorance.Really?? First of, as the DNC hack showed Putin has a clear preference to what candidate he wants to win. Secondly Putin has been under pressure from Obama and Europe by trade sanctions, that's the real world politics, not what you see as the truth, through partisan glasses.Putin is emboldened every time he sees a picture of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.You think Putin interpreted it as sarcastic? He emboldens a leader of a nation which has territorial ambitions by saying that, and emboldens him some more when calling NATO obsolete. America is broke but still spends about the same amount on defense as the next 10 countries combined, so claiming they are not , as they are the biggest player on the NATO table is ridiculous. Actions AND words have consequences. So again what is the better choice? A candidate who gets this simple fact or one who doesn't and who has proven to not be able to let his ego go, even if it is in his best interest.I have a major problem actually with the entire party finance system. It's a system that invites corruption. But that's not the point I'm making. I don't like Clinton, but she does have a clear grasp on international politics. Something Trump has shown to not have.Really?? First of, as the DNC hack showed Putin has a clear preference to what candidate he wants to win. Secondly Putin has been under pressure from Obama and Europe by trade sanctions, that's the real world politics, not what you see as the truth, through partisan glasses. Policies and cooperative relationships that are put under scrutiny when Trump opens his mouth without any real knowledge of international politics.Putin is emboldened every time he sees a picture of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
So you blame the messenger not the message?
You have no problem with all these shady foreigners giving millions upon millions of dollars to the clinton foundation while she was Secretary of state and now running for president?
Sounds to me she is bought and sold to the highest bidder.
A clear grasp? You mean when she was so gun hole to attack Libya that the Pentagon and her own party tried to go behind her back and stop it?
Hillary Clinton undercut on Libya war by Pentagon and Congress, secret tapes reveal
If she was bush Jr. We would of never heard the end of it.
There was no reason for that war what so ever.
The most delicious thing about this e-mail "scandal," is that if republicans hadn't driven themselves into an insane frenzy over the last 8 years, trying to convince each other of blatant lies (like Obama being a Muslim, that Hillary killed Ambassador Stevens, etc), trying to convince each other that anybody in their party trying to be reasonable is a RINO, and on and on... this e-mail scandal, none of which was illegal btw, probably would have sunk Hillary! Instead, you nominated a candidate that confirmed everyone's worst fears about republicans! Bravo!
Of course YOU don't. Based on what you've been posting, you wouldn't care if they clearly showed Hillary taking bribes to put troops in harms way.The FBI had those e-mails. They are not new. And nobody cares.
Extremely careless. Good enough for me. Keep her out of the White House unless she has a visitor's pass.OP- ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ "Nothing criminal, no intent", NADA, hater dupes.
Because that's the only thing that matters.DONE - GOING TO JAIL!Hillary's problems involve more than what the FBI has uncovered. Judicial Watch is breaking news with new documents they have obtained:
Judicialwatch.org
'New Abedin Emails Reveal Hillary Clinton State Department Gave Special Access to Top Clinton Foundation Donors'
"Crown Prince of Bahrain Forced to Go Through Foundation to See Clinton, after Pledging $32 Million to Clinton Global Initiative
Hollywood Executive Casey Wasserman, Slimfast Mogul Daniel Abraham, Controversial Appointee Rajiv Fernando also among Clinton Foundation Donors Granted Special Favors from Clinton State Department"
"(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released 725 pages of new State Department documents, including previously unreleased email exchanges in which former Hillary Clinton’s top aide Huma Abedin provided influential Clinton Foundation donors special, expedited access to the secretary of state. In many instances, the preferential treatment provided to donors was at the specific request of Clinton Foundation executive Douglas Band.
The new documents included 20 Hillary Clinton email exchanges not previously turned over to the State Department, bringing the known total to date to 191 of new Clinton emails (not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department). These records further appear to contradict statements by Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department."
BUSTED!
ROTFLMAO
Indictments coming down any day now, any day..............................................
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
In case you haven't noticed Russia has annexed 1 sovereign nation and invaded another one, in the last 5 years. So saying NATO is outdated because Russia isn't expansionist anymore doesn't work. He's also holding major military exercises in the North, targeted at the Baltic states. Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are all members of NATO an organisation that Trump openly questioned. Trump takes office and what do you think will happen? Now if you want to renegotiate the NATO charter, fine but you don't do it publicly, you do it privately. And what you never, ever do is do it because it plays well as a soundbite.Nope. NATO is a bad deal for the US. We're stuck with paying for the defense of countries that can afford to pay for their own defense. Only an ignorant progressive sycophant would think otherwise. Trump is spot on with this but your handlers are telling you he's wrong in a silly attempt to make him look unqualified.A couple of things. The obvious, what the congressman did using back channels and undermining the official decision of the administration I find tantamount to treason and I don't consider the word of the spokesperson of one of the most ruthless dictators of the latter half of the 20th century as particularly reliable. Secondly Clinton by advocating intervention went with past experiences and as current events in Syria show, dictators targeting their own populace to keep power isn't exactly unheard of. She also wasn't the only person to do so as your article showed since she had support for her position both internally and internationally. Their is a clear difference between a knowledgeable person making choices that hindsight might critisise and. Trump claiming NATO is obsolete because it plays well with his supporters not taking into consideration, the consequences of that statement if he would win the elections. The first 1 is a judgement call, the second one is simple ignorance.Really?? First of, as the DNC hack showed Putin has a clear preference to what candidate he wants to win. Secondly Putin has been under pressure from Obama and Europe by trade sanctions, that's the real world politics, not what you see as the truth, through partisan glasses.Putin is emboldened every time he sees a picture of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.I have a major problem actually with the entire party finance system. It's a system that invites corruption. But that's not the point I'm making. I don't like Clinton, but she does have a clear grasp on international politics. Something Trump has shown to not have.Really?? First of, as the DNC hack showed Putin has a clear preference to what candidate he wants to win. Secondly Putin has been under pressure from Obama and Europe by trade sanctions, that's the real world politics, not what you see as the truth, through partisan glasses. Policies and cooperative relationships that are put under scrutiny when Trump opens his mouth without any real knowledge of international politics.
So you blame the messenger not the message?
You have no problem with all these shady foreigners giving millions upon millions of dollars to the clinton foundation while she was Secretary of state and now running for president?
Sounds to me she is bought and sold to the highest bidder.
A clear grasp? You mean when she was so gun hole to attack Libya that the Pentagon and her own party tried to go behind her back and stop it?
Hillary Clinton undercut on Libya war by Pentagon and Congress, secret tapes reveal
If she was bush Jr. We would of never heard the end of it.
There was no reason for that war what so ever.
NATO is an alliance that is outdated and was created to prevent Soviet expansion.
A couple of things. The obvious, what the congressman did using back channels and undermining the official decision of the administration I find tantamount to treason and I don't consider the word of the spokesperson of one of the most ruthless dictators of the latter half of the 20th century as particularly reliable. Secondly Clinton by advocating intervention went with past experiences and as current events in Syria show, dictators targeting their own populace to keep power isn't exactly unheard of. She also wasn't the only person to do so as your article showed since she had support for her position both internally and internationally. Their is a clear difference between a knowledgeable person making choices that hindsight might critisise and. Trump claiming NATO is obsolete because it plays well with his supporters not taking into consideration, the consequences of that statement if he would win the elections. The first 1 is a judgement call, the second one is simple ignorance.Really?? First of, as the DNC hack showed Putin has a clear preference to what candidate he wants to win. Secondly Putin has been under pressure from Obama and Europe by trade sanctions, that's the real world politics, not what you see as the truth, through partisan glasses.Putin is emboldened every time he sees a picture of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.You think Putin interpreted it as sarcastic? He emboldens a leader of a nation which has territorial ambitions by saying that, and emboldens him some more when calling NATO obsolete. America is broke but still spends about the same amount on defense as the next 10 countries combined, so claiming they are not , as they are the biggest player on the NATO table is ridiculous. Actions AND words have consequences. So again what is the better choice? A candidate who gets this simple fact or one who doesn't and who has proven to not be able to let his ego go, even if it is in his best interest.I have a major problem actually with the entire party finance system. It's a system that invites corruption. But that's not the point I'm making. I don't like Clinton, but she does have a clear grasp on international politics. Something Trump has shown to not have.Really?? First of, as the DNC hack showed Putin has a clear preference to what candidate he wants to win. Secondly Putin has been under pressure from Obama and Europe by trade sanctions, that's the real world politics, not what you see as the truth, through partisan glasses. Policies and cooperative relationships that are put under scrutiny when Trump opens his mouth without any real knowledge of international politics.Putin is emboldened every time he sees a picture of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
So you blame the messenger not the message?
You have no problem with all these shady foreigners giving millions upon millions of dollars to the clinton foundation while she was Secretary of state and now running for president?
Sounds to me she is bought and sold to the highest bidder.
A clear grasp? You mean when she was so gun hole to attack Libya that the Pentagon and her own party tried to go behind her back and stop it?
Hillary Clinton undercut on Libya war by Pentagon and Congress, secret tapes reveal
If she was bush Jr. We would of never heard the end of it.
There was no reason for that war what so ever.
