If you are a Democrat, are you having 2nd thoughts about Hillary?

[PaintMyHouse]

Oh, I hadn't thought of it that way. You are going for the candidate you think could win rather than the most competent or the best candidate. That is probably how a lot of people feel.

The point of an election is to win, period.

That's one way to look at it. Now I understand the re-election of Obama. Don't vote for the best candidate, just one you think will win, good or bad.

That's exactly it with Democrats. They dont care about qualifications, ethics, fitness for office or anything else. There is no other measure than ability to win.
This is why Democrats are the most morally corrupt sons of bitches on this planet. A total absence of objectivity and morality. All that is important is winning.

Being objective about an election means you don't run or vote for losers, dumbass.

Dumbshit. You vote for "qualified" candidates. Candidates who take bribes, who commit perjury, who lie cheat and steal are not qualified. It doesnt matter how much they look like winners. They are not qualified for office.

The qualification of an election here is exactly this, can you fucking win? If not, go fuck yourself. Got it now?

 

[Mac1958]

Out of the endless shitstorm of accusations about her, the one that has bothered me is the email thing, and it looks like it's the one that may stick.

But assuming she gets the nomination, the GOP still has to run a candidate who can beat her.

.

You arent bothered by the apparent bribery? One of the Swiss banks, which had never contributed to the Clinton Foundation, found itself between US disclosure laws and Swiss secrecy laws. They appealed to Clinton as SecState and she got them a waiver on US laws. Immediately after that the Foundation received millions of dollars in contributions from this same bank.
Coincidence? No, I dont think so.

It's not about being bothered by something - I can not and will not vote for her because, among other reasons, she is untrustworthy - it's about a charge that sticks legally and actually takes her out. As long as that doesn't happen, many voters will turn a blind eye to all her, um, stuff..

When people cease being outraged by that kind of behavior then this country is doomed.

The decay of standards and expectations across the board is well underway already.

.

I hope that wasnt a moral equivalence cop out. Because nothing like that happens with the GOP.

It was a comment on our culture.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

Out of the endless shitstorm of accusations about her, the one that has bothered me is the email thing, and it looks like it's the one that may stick.

But assuming she gets the nomination, the GOP still has to run a candidate who can beat her.

.

You arent bothered by the apparent bribery? One of the Swiss banks, which had never contributed to the Clinton Foundation, found itself between US disclosure laws and Swiss secrecy laws. They appealed to Clinton as SecState and she got them a waiver on US laws. Immediately after that the Foundation received millions of dollars in contributions from this same bank.
Coincidence? No, I dont think so.

It's not about being bothered by something - I can not and will not vote for her because, among other reasons, she is untrustworthy - it's about a charge that sticks legally and actually takes her out. As long as that doesn't happen, many voters will turn a blind eye to all her, um, stuff.

.

So far, none of her, um, stuff, has turned out to be true. Why would you give any credibility to a bunch of lies? ..........Oh, that's right, you're a right winger. You'll believe anything.

No actually much of it is true. She has even admitted to it. What it lacking is the will to prosecute.

 

[Jackson]

I welcome all qualified contestants. That doesn't mean I have found a single reason to oppose Hillary. It just means there could be someone better. It's still too early to make a final decision.

There are always better people, the question is, can they win?

Oh, I hadn't thought of it that way. You are going for the candidate you think could win rather than the most competent or the best candidate. That is probably how a lot of people feel.

The point of an election is to win, period.

That's one way to look at it. Now I understand the re-election of Obama. Don't vote for the best candidate, just one you think will win, good or bad.

That's exactly it with Democrats. They dont care about qualifications, ethics, fitness for office or anything else. There is no other measure than ability to win.
This is why Democrats are the most morally corrupt sons of bitches on this planet. A total absence of objectivity and morality. All that is important is winning.

I can't argue with that after listening to Paint. I would like to think that some Democrats actually listen to all the choices and pick the one that they think would make a good president.

 

[The Rabbi]

The point of an election is to win, period.

That's one way to look at it. Now I understand the re-election of Obama. Don't vote for the best candidate, just one you think will win, good or bad.

That's exactly it with Democrats. They dont care about qualifications, ethics, fitness for office or anything else. There is no other measure than ability to win.
This is why Democrats are the most morally corrupt sons of bitches on this planet. A total absence of objectivity and morality. All that is important is winning.

Being objective about an election means you don't run or vote for losers, dumbass.

Dumbshit. You vote for "qualified" candidates. Candidates who take bribes, who commit perjury, who lie cheat and steal are not qualified. It doesnt matter how much they look like winners. They are not qualified for office.

The qualification of an election here is exactly this, can you fucking win? If not, go fuck yourself. Got it now?

See, that is the current ethos of the Democratic Party. Winning at all costs. This is why the Democratic Party is dying and will be irrelevant for most of the country after 2016.

 

[The Rabbi]

There are always better people, the question is, can they win?

Oh, I hadn't thought of it that way. You are going for the candidate you think could win rather than the most competent or the best candidate. That is probably how a lot of people feel.

The point of an election is to win, period.

That's one way to look at it. Now I understand the re-election of Obama. Don't vote for the best candidate, just one you think will win, good or bad.

That's exactly it with Democrats. They dont care about qualifications, ethics, fitness for office or anything else. There is no other measure than ability to win.
This is why Democrats are the most morally corrupt sons of bitches on this planet. A total absence of objectivity and morality. All that is important is winning.

I can't argue with that after listening to Paint. I would like to think that some Democrats actually listen to all the choices and pick the one that they think would make a good president.

They do. That's why Sanders is doing so well. Whatever his bizarre communist beliefs, he sincerely holds them and is untainted by scandal.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Out of the endless shitstorm of accusations about her, the one that has bothered me is the email thing, and it looks like it's the one that may stick.

But assuming she gets the nomination, the GOP still has to run a candidate who can beat her.

.

You arent bothered by the apparent bribery? One of the Swiss banks, which had never contributed to the Clinton Foundation, found itself between US disclosure laws and Swiss secrecy laws. They appealed to Clinton as SecState and she got them a waiver on US laws. Immediately after that the Foundation received millions of dollars in contributions from this same bank.
Coincidence? No, I dont think so.

It's not about being bothered by something - I can not and will not vote for her because, among other reasons, she is untrustworthy - it's about a charge that sticks legally and actually takes her out. As long as that doesn't happen, many voters will turn a blind eye to all her, um, stuff.

.

So far, none of her, um, stuff, has turned out to be true. Why would you give any credibility to a bunch of lies? ..........Oh, that's right, you're a right winger. You'll believe anything.

No actually much of it is true. She has even admitted to it. What it lacking is the will to prosecute.

What's lacking are actual crimes...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

That's one way to look at it. Now I understand the re-election of Obama. Don't vote for the best candidate, just one you think will win, good or bad.

That's exactly it with Democrats. They dont care about qualifications, ethics, fitness for office or anything else. There is no other measure than ability to win.
This is why Democrats are the most morally corrupt sons of bitches on this planet. A total absence of objectivity and morality. All that is important is winning.

Being objective about an election means you don't run or vote for losers, dumbass.

Dumbshit. You vote for "qualified" candidates. Candidates who take bribes, who commit perjury, who lie cheat and steal are not qualified. It doesnt matter how much they look like winners. They are not qualified for office.

The qualification of an election here is exactly this, can you fucking win? If not, go fuck yourself. Got it now?

See, that is the current ethos of the Democratic Party. Winning at all costs. This is why the Democratic Party is dying and will be irrelevant for most of the country after 2016.

Since they will hold the Senate and win the presidency again, more than likely, no one knows what the hell you are talking about. In elections winning is the only goddamned thing that matters...

 

[Jackson]

Oh, I hadn't thought of it that way. You are going for the candidate you think could win rather than the most competent or the best candidate. That is probably how a lot of people feel.

The point of an election is to win, period.

That's one way to look at it. Now I understand the re-election of Obama. Don't vote for the best candidate, just one you think will win, good or bad.

That's exactly it with Democrats. They dont care about qualifications, ethics, fitness for office or anything else. There is no other measure than ability to win.
This is why Democrats are the most morally corrupt sons of bitches on this planet. A total absence of objectivity and morality. All that is important is winning.

I can't argue with that after listening to Paint. I would like to think that some Democrats actually listen to all the choices and pick the one that they think would make a good president.

They do. That's why Sanders is doing so well. Whatever his bizarre communist beliefs, he sincerely holds them and is untainted by scandal.

Yes, that makes me feel better. When one has SO MUCH baggage and a basic question of integrity, the only thing left to do is look at other candidates available to you. Sheep like Paint I don't think is rampant in the D Party. At least I hope not.

 

[BULLDOG]

Out of the endless shitstorm of accusations about her, the one that has bothered me is the email thing, and it looks like it's the one that may stick.

But assuming she gets the nomination, the GOP still has to run a candidate who can beat her.

.

You arent bothered by the apparent bribery? One of the Swiss banks, which had never contributed to the Clinton Foundation, found itself between US disclosure laws and Swiss secrecy laws. They appealed to Clinton as SecState and she got them a waiver on US laws. Immediately after that the Foundation received millions of dollars in contributions from this same bank.
Coincidence? No, I dont think so.

It's not about being bothered by something - I can not and will not vote for her because, among other reasons, she is untrustworthy - it's about a charge that sticks legally and actually takes her out. As long as that doesn't happen, many voters will turn a blind eye to all her, um, stuff.

.

So far, none of her, um, stuff, has turned out to be true. Why would you give any credibility to a bunch of lies? ..........Oh, that's right, you're a right winger. You'll believe anything.

No actually much of it is true. She has even admitted to it. What it lacking is the will to prosecute.

Which crimes has she admitted to?

 

[Jackson]

That's exactly it with Democrats. They dont care about qualifications, ethics, fitness for office or anything else. There is no other measure than ability to win.
This is why Democrats are the most morally corrupt sons of bitches on this planet. A total absence of objectivity and morality. All that is important is winning.

Being objective about an election means you don't run or vote for losers, dumbass.

Dumbshit. You vote for "qualified" candidates. Candidates who take bribes, who commit perjury, who lie cheat and steal are not qualified. It doesnt matter how much they look like winners. They are not qualified for office.

The qualification of an election here is exactly this, can you fucking win? If not, go fuck yourself. Got it now?

See, that is the current ethos of the Democratic Party. Winning at all costs. This is why the Democratic Party is dying and will be irrelevant for most of the country after 2016.

Since they will hold the Senate and win the presidency again, more than likely, no one knows what the hell you are talking about. In elections winning is the only goddamned thing that matters...

Uh huh. More important than what the candidate wants to do for the country. Did you vote for Carter>

 

[Jackson]

Out of the endless shitstorm of accusations about her, the one that has bothered me is the email thing, and it looks like it's the one that may stick.

But assuming she gets the nomination, the GOP still has to run a candidate who can beat her.

.

You arent bothered by the apparent bribery? One of the Swiss banks, which had never contributed to the Clinton Foundation, found itself between US disclosure laws and Swiss secrecy laws. They appealed to Clinton as SecState and she got them a waiver on US laws. Immediately after that the Foundation received millions of dollars in contributions from this same bank.
Coincidence? No, I dont think so.

It's not about being bothered by something - I can not and will not vote for her because, among other reasons, she is untrustworthy - it's about a charge that sticks legally and actually takes her out. As long as that doesn't happen, many voters will turn a blind eye to all her, um, stuff.

.

So far, none of her, um, stuff, has turned out to be true. Why would you give any credibility to a bunch of lies? ..........Oh, that's right, you're a right winger. You'll believe anything.

No actually much of it is true. She has even admitted to it. What it lacking is the will to prosecute.

Which crimes has she admitted to?

Scrubbing her server before it could be investigated.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Being objective about an election means you don't run or vote for losers, dumbass.

Dumbshit. You vote for "qualified" candidates. Candidates who take bribes, who commit perjury, who lie cheat and steal are not qualified. It doesnt matter how much they look like winners. They are not qualified for office.

The qualification of an election here is exactly this, can you fucking win? If not, go fuck yourself. Got it now?

See, that is the current ethos of the Democratic Party. Winning at all costs. This is why the Democratic Party is dying and will be irrelevant for most of the country after 2016.

Since they will hold the Senate and win the presidency again, more than likely, no one knows what the hell you are talking about. In elections winning is the only goddamned thing that matters...

Uh huh. More important than what the candidate wants to do for the country. Did you vote for Carter>

You can't do fuck all, if you can't win first.

Hey kids, let's find the most qualified person around but he can't win so let's run him, vote for him, and lose. What a great plan, why didn't I think of that...

 

[BULLDOG]

You arent bothered by the apparent bribery? One of the Swiss banks, which had never contributed to the Clinton Foundation, found itself between US disclosure laws and Swiss secrecy laws. They appealed to Clinton as SecState and she got them a waiver on US laws. Immediately after that the Foundation received millions of dollars in contributions from this same bank.
Coincidence? No, I dont think so.

It's not about being bothered by something - I can not and will not vote for her because, among other reasons, she is untrustworthy - it's about a charge that sticks legally and actually takes her out. As long as that doesn't happen, many voters will turn a blind eye to all her, um, stuff.

.

So far, none of her, um, stuff, has turned out to be true. Why would you give any credibility to a bunch of lies? ..........Oh, that's right, you're a right winger. You'll believe anything.

No actually much of it is true. She has even admitted to it. What it lacking is the will to prosecute.

Which crimes has she admitted to?

Scrubbing her server before it could be investigated.

Who exactly had the authority and responsibility to determine which communications on her server had to be saved, and which could be deleted?

 

[Jackson]

It's not about being bothered by something - I can not and will not vote for her because, among other reasons, she is untrustworthy - it's about a charge that sticks legally and actually takes her out. As long as that doesn't happen, many voters will turn a blind eye to all her, um, stuff.

.

So far, none of her, um, stuff, has turned out to be true. Why would you give any credibility to a bunch of lies? ..........Oh, that's right, you're a right winger. You'll believe anything.

No actually much of it is true. She has even admitted to it. What it lacking is the will to prosecute.

Which crimes has she admitted to?

Scrubbing her server before it could be investigated.

Who exactly had the authority and responsibility to determine which communications on her server had to be saved, and which could be deleted?

Investigators, once they saw she went out of the government server. Once there was a cloud of suspicion as to the reason she hid these emails and then scrubbed them, investigators from IG's and the FBI should have taken over.

 

[Jackson]

Dumbshit. You vote for "qualified" candidates. Candidates who take bribes, who commit perjury, who lie cheat and steal are not qualified. It doesnt matter how much they look like winners. They are not qualified for office.

The qualification of an election here is exactly this, can you fucking win? If not, go fuck yourself. Got it now?

See, that is the current ethos of the Democratic Party. Winning at all costs. This is why the Democratic Party is dying and will be irrelevant for most of the country after 2016.

Since they will hold the Senate and win the presidency again, more than likely, no one knows what the hell you are talking about. In elections winning is the only goddamned thing that matters...

Uh huh. More important than what the candidate wants to do for the country. Did you vote for Carter>

You can't do fuck all, if you can't win first.

Hey kids, let's find the most qualified person around but he can't win so let's run him, vote for him, and lose. What a great plan, why didn't I think of that...

Or let's vote for the easiest sap to get out the vote regardless of what he does in office....

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The qualification of an election here is exactly this, can you fucking win? If not, go fuck yourself. Got it now?

See, that is the current ethos of the Democratic Party. Winning at all costs. This is why the Democratic Party is dying and will be irrelevant for most of the country after 2016.

Since they will hold the Senate and win the presidency again, more than likely, no one knows what the hell you are talking about. In elections winning is the only goddamned thing that matters...

Uh huh. More important than what the candidate wants to do for the country. Did you vote for Carter>

You can't do fuck all, if you can't win first.

Hey kids, let's find the most qualified person around but he can't win so let's run him, vote for him, and lose. What a great plan, why didn't I think of that...

Or let's vote for the easiest sap to get out the vote regardless of what he does in office....

A sap who can win versus a great guy who can't. Yeah, pick one? Elections are about winning, kiddos. Now you know.

And this email server fishing trip is about as alive and well as Chris Stevens.

 

[Jackson]

See, that is the current ethos of the Democratic Party. Winning at all costs. This is why the Democratic Party is dying and will be irrelevant for most of the country after 2016.

Since they will hold the Senate and win the presidency again, more than likely, no one knows what the hell you are talking about. In elections winning is the only goddamned thing that matters...

Uh huh. More important than what the candidate wants to do for the country. Did you vote for Carter>

You can't do fuck all, if you can't win first.

Hey kids, let's find the most qualified person around but he can't win so let's run him, vote for him, and lose. What a great plan, why didn't I think of that...

Or let's vote for the easiest sap to get out the vote regardless of what he does in office....

A sap who can win versus a great guy who can't. Yeah, pick one? Elections are about winning, kiddos. Now you know.

And this email server fishing trip is about as alive and well as Chris Stevens.

I'd rather have a great president than a lesser one from my own party. I hope many others feel the same way.

 

[blastoff]

On Hillary's emails, of course many were not officially labeled as classified since it's the nature of emails that they are newly created documents at the time and have not been reviewed for classification. That being said, the Secretary of State should be knowledgeable enough to know that much of the information in her emails is sensitive material even though it may not yet have been given the label as "classified". Hillary stating that her emails were not classified while she was SOS is simply a ruse; the SOS deals with highly sensitive material for that is the nature of the job.

All true.

And if she'd just followed the rules in place for her and other high level government officials regarding email accounts there would be no need for any investigations.

What are reports thus far, 4 out of 40 emails had sensitive stuff. That's 10%. How many thousands of her emails were supposedly involved again? For you low info dims if it was only 10,000 emails, 10% = 1,000 messages with sensitive info. All because a Secretary of State didn't follow the rules. And the question is why the hell not?

No wonder she's faltering. Déjà vu all over again for the First Enabler? She better figure something out quick as falling numbers make news.

 

[The Rabbi]

Out of the endless shitstorm of accusations about her, the one that has bothered me is the email thing, and it looks like it's the one that may stick.

But assuming she gets the nomination, the GOP still has to run a candidate who can beat her.

.

You arent bothered by the apparent bribery? One of the Swiss banks, which had never contributed to the Clinton Foundation, found itself between US disclosure laws and Swiss secrecy laws. They appealed to Clinton as SecState and she got them a waiver on US laws. Immediately after that the Foundation received millions of dollars in contributions from this same bank.
Coincidence? No, I dont think so.

It's not about being bothered by something - I can not and will not vote for her because, among other reasons, she is untrustworthy - it's about a charge that sticks legally and actually takes her out. As long as that doesn't happen, many voters will turn a blind eye to all her, um, stuff.

.

So far, none of her, um, stuff, has turned out to be true. Why would you give any credibility to a bunch of lies? ..........Oh, that's right, you're a right winger. You'll believe anything.

No actually much of it is true. She has even admitted to it. What it lacking is the will to prosecute.

What's lacking are actual crimes...

No what is lacking are indictments. There is no lack of credible allegations.