Why the hate on Hillary? BS hate propaganda PERIOD.

[francoHFW]

Party is all you care about - and you blatantly lie to promote your filthy party.

The LAW requires that all email be archived so that a Freedom of Information Act request can perform discovery on the email. Hillary commissioned a private email system to SPECIFICALLY violate the law, knowing that federal system operators WILL comply. She further hired hackers to use Bit Bleach to erase the evidence of her criminal acts.

Yes, Comey said that Hillary is above the law, she is "too big to jail." Nonetheless, she willfully and maliciously violated the law.

No matter how much you lie, this does not change.

Personal e-mails are allowed to be deleted. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ WTH is she supposed to be hiding ANYWAY? LOL

How do we know they were personal?
Just take her word for it?

Frankie thinks everything Hildebeast says is golden. She can do no wrong. He's a dupe...

I thinkl she'll be a good president. What this country doesn't need is tax cuts on the rich and deregulating Wall St. How many times can you be fooled with malevolent gossip, conspiracy theories, and blaming the poor (blacks)?

She won't be president.
It won't even be close.
Dupe.

If it's an online vote for trolls lol

 

[rdean]

Stop Pretending You Don't Know Why People Hate Hillary Clinton | Huffington Post

When the Bush administration was discovered to have erased millions of emails illegally sent by 22 administration officials through private, RNC-owned accounts, in order to thwart an investigation into the politically motivated firing of eight US attorneys, just one talk show covered it that Sunday.

When Mitt Romney wiped servers, sold government hard drives to his closest aides and spent $100,000 in taxpayer money to destroy his administration’s emails, it was barely an issue.

When Hillary Clinton asked Colin Powell how he managed to use a Blackberry while serving as Secretary of State, he replied by detailing his method of intentionally bypassing federal record-keeping laws:





I didn’t have a Blackberry. What I did do was have a personal computer that was hooked up to a private phone line (sounds ancient.) So I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without it going through the State Department servers. I even used it to do business with some foreign leaders and some of the senior folks in the Department on their personal email accounts. I did the same thing on the road in hotels.

... There is a real danger. If it is public that you have a BlackBerry and it it [sic] government and you are using it, government or not, to do business, it may become an official record and subject to the law.





Yet the fact that Hillary Clinton emailed through a private server anddidn’t use it to cover anything up is somehow the defining issue of her campaign. “My God,” people cry, “anyone else would be in jail!”

Or is the real scandal that her family runs but does not profit from a charitable foundation awarded an A grade by Charity Watch, a four out of four star rating by Charity Navigator and responsible for helping 435 million people in 180 countries get things like clean drinking water and HIV medication? Because the AP seems super concerned that she encountered people who donated to it—specifically Nobel Peace Prize-winning economist Muhammad Yunus—in her official capacity as Secretary of State.

It should at this point be observed that her opponent is a shameless con artist who has built an empire bilking people with fake businesses, fake universities, fake charities and, now, a fake campaign. Last week, he told a lie every three minutes and fifteen seconds. Oh, and did we mention that he, (like so many of his online “supporters,”) is a goddamnRussian stooge? I tried to list all of the dumb, awful stuff that he does every day and I cannot come close to keeping up.

Voters, it seems, are his easiest marks yet.

And it isn’t just Republicans. The double standards are even more transparent on the left.

Back in the mid-90s, Clinton’s persistent unwillingness to hide the fact that she was a thinking human female really freaked the center-left establishment out. Michael Moore observed that, “[Maureen Dowd] is fixated on trashing Hillary Rodham in the way liberals love to do, to prove they’re not really liberal.” The bashing slowly morphed into a creepy, extraordinary sort of policing.

Since then, Clinton racked up a Senate voting record more liberal than any nominee since Mondale. Her 2008 platform was slightly to Obama’s left on domestic issues. Her 2016 platform was barely to the right of self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders.

Yet, we have all heard and seen countless liberal posers passionately decrying her “far right voting record,” untrustworthy promises or ever-changing policy positions. Jon Stewart recently called Clinton, “A bright woman without the courage of her convictions, because I don’t know what they even are.” Because if he doesn’t know, she must not have any, right?

In fact, there is a very lengthy trail of public records all pointing in the same direction. If you can’t figure out which, maybe the problem is you.

Yet, many on the left who gladly voted for John Kerry, two years after hevoted to authorize the Iraq war, now say they couldn’t possibly vote for Clinton, because she did, too.

And view her with contempt for opposing same-sex marriage in 2008, while fawning over men like Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders, who held the same position at the same time.

It’s time to stop pretending that this is about substance. This is about an eagerness to believe that a woman who seeks power will say or do anything to get it. This is about a Lady MacBeth stereotype that, frankly, should never have existed in the first place. This is about the one thing no one wants to admit it’s about.

Consider, for a moment, two people. One, as a young woman at the beginning of a promising legal career, went door to door searching for ways to guarantee an education to the countless disabled and disadvantaged children who had fallen through the cracks. The other, as a young millionaire, exacted revenge on his recently deceased brother’s family by cutting off the medical insurance desperately needed by his nephew’s newborn son, who at eighteen months of age was suffering from violent seizures brought on by a rare neurological disorder.

What kind of a society treats these two people as equal in any way? What kind of society even considers the latter over the former for its highest office?

Generations from now, people will shake their heads at this moment in time, when the first female major party presidential nominee—competent, qualified and more thoroughly vetted than any non-incumbent candidate in history—endured the humiliation of being likened to such an obvious grifter, ignoramus and hate monger.

We deserve the shame that we will bear.



The GOP propaganda machine, and the cowardly corporate media and politicians that allow this to pass are a disgrace.

Not only that, I think that when she won the debate, that was the first positive story the media did on her since she entered the race. Can you think of any others?

 

[rdean]

Stop Pretending You Don't Know Why People Hate Hillary Clinton | Huffington Post

When the Bush administration was discovered to have erased millions of emails illegally sent by 22 administration officials through private, RNC-owned accounts, in order to thwart an investigation into the politically motivated firing of eight US attorneys, just one talk show covered it that Sunday.

When Mitt Romney wiped servers, sold government hard drives to his closest aides and spent $100,000 in taxpayer money to destroy his administration’s emails, it was barely an issue.

When Hillary Clinton asked Colin Powell how he managed to use a Blackberry while serving as Secretary of State, he replied by detailing his method of intentionally bypassing federal record-keeping laws:





I didn’t have a Blackberry. What I did do was have a personal computer that was hooked up to a private phone line (sounds ancient.) So I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without it going through the State Department servers. I even used it to do business with some foreign leaders and some of the senior folks in the Department on their personal email accounts. I did the same thing on the road in hotels.

... There is a real danger. If it is public that you have a BlackBerry and it it [sic] government and you are using it, government or not, to do business, it may become an official record and subject to the law.





Yet the fact that Hillary Clinton emailed through a private server anddidn’t use it to cover anything up is somehow the defining issue of her campaign. “My God,” people cry, “anyone else would be in jail!”

Or is the real scandal that her family runs but does not profit from a charitable foundation awarded an A grade by Charity Watch, a four out of four star rating by Charity Navigator and responsible for helping 435 million people in 180 countries get things like clean drinking water and HIV medication? Because the AP seems super concerned that she encountered people who donated to it—specifically Nobel Peace Prize-winning economist Muhammad Yunus—in her official capacity as Secretary of State.

It should at this point be observed that her opponent is a shameless con artist who has built an empire bilking people with fake businesses, fake universities, fake charities and, now, a fake campaign. Last week, he told a lie every three minutes and fifteen seconds. Oh, and did we mention that he, (like so many of his online “supporters,”) is a goddamnRussian stooge? I tried to list all of the dumb, awful stuff that he does every day and I cannot come close to keeping up.

Voters, it seems, are his easiest marks yet.

And it isn’t just Republicans. The double standards are even more transparent on the left.

Back in the mid-90s, Clinton’s persistent unwillingness to hide the fact that she was a thinking human female really freaked the center-left establishment out. Michael Moore observed that, “[Maureen Dowd] is fixated on trashing Hillary Rodham in the way liberals love to do, to prove they’re not really liberal.” The bashing slowly morphed into a creepy, extraordinary sort of policing.

Since then, Clinton racked up a Senate voting record more liberal than any nominee since Mondale. Her 2008 platform was slightly to Obama’s left on domestic issues. Her 2016 platform was barely to the right of self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders.

Yet, we have all heard and seen countless liberal posers passionately decrying her “far right voting record,” untrustworthy promises or ever-changing policy positions. Jon Stewart recently called Clinton, “A bright woman without the courage of her convictions, because I don’t know what they even are.” Because if he doesn’t know, she must not have any, right?

In fact, there is a very lengthy trail of public records all pointing in the same direction. If you can’t figure out which, maybe the problem is you.

Yet, many on the left who gladly voted for John Kerry, two years after hevoted to authorize the Iraq war, now say they couldn’t possibly vote for Clinton, because she did, too.

And view her with contempt for opposing same-sex marriage in 2008, while fawning over men like Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders, who held the same position at the same time.

It’s time to stop pretending that this is about substance. This is about an eagerness to believe that a woman who seeks power will say or do anything to get it. This is about a Lady MacBeth stereotype that, frankly, should never have existed in the first place. This is about the one thing no one wants to admit it’s about.

Consider, for a moment, two people. One, as a young woman at the beginning of a promising legal career, went door to door searching for ways to guarantee an education to the countless disabled and disadvantaged children who had fallen through the cracks. The other, as a young millionaire, exacted revenge on his recently deceased brother’s family by cutting off the medical insurance desperately needed by his nephew’s newborn son, who at eighteen months of age was suffering from violent seizures brought on by a rare neurological disorder.

What kind of a society treats these two people as equal in any way? What kind of society even considers the latter over the former for its highest office?

Generations from now, people will shake their heads at this moment in time, when the first female major party presidential nominee—competent, qualified and more thoroughly vetted than any non-incumbent candidate in history—endured the humiliation of being likened to such an obvious grifter, ignoramus and hate monger.

We deserve the shame that we will bear.



The GOP propaganda machine, and the cowardly corporate media and politicians that allow this to pass are a disgrace.

Why do Clinton supporters always sound like Mafia lawyers?

There is no double standard. Five of Clinton's closest advisers in the State Department demanded immunity from prosecution before talking to the FBI. No one demands immunity from prosecution unless they know they have engaged in criminal activity. This calls for a special prosecutor to find out just how deeply involved Hillary was in all this criminal activity with her top staff.

Another GOP investigation into Hillary Clinton? How many does that make? 20? 50? 100?

The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. When is enough?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Stop Pretending You Don't Know Why People Hate Hillary Clinton | Huffington Post

When the Bush administration was discovered to have erased millions of emails illegally sent by 22 administration officials through private, RNC-owned accounts, in order to thwart an investigation into the politically motivated firing of eight US attorneys, just one talk show covered it that Sunday.

When Mitt Romney wiped servers, sold government hard drives to his closest aides and spent $100,000 in taxpayer money to destroy his administration’s emails, it was barely an issue.

When Hillary Clinton asked Colin Powell how he managed to use a Blackberry while serving as Secretary of State, he replied by detailing his method of intentionally bypassing federal record-keeping laws:





I didn’t have a Blackberry. What I did do was have a personal computer that was hooked up to a private phone line (sounds ancient.) So I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without it going through the State Department servers. I even used it to do business with some foreign leaders and some of the senior folks in the Department on their personal email accounts. I did the same thing on the road in hotels.

... There is a real danger. If it is public that you have a BlackBerry and it it [sic] government and you are using it, government or not, to do business, it may become an official record and subject to the law.





Yet the fact that Hillary Clinton emailed through a private server anddidn’t use it to cover anything up is somehow the defining issue of her campaign. “My God,” people cry, “anyone else would be in jail!”

Or is the real scandal that her family runs but does not profit from a charitable foundation awarded an A grade by Charity Watch, a four out of four star rating by Charity Navigator and responsible for helping 435 million people in 180 countries get things like clean drinking water and HIV medication? Because the AP seems super concerned that she encountered people who donated to it—specifically Nobel Peace Prize-winning economist Muhammad Yunus—in her official capacity as Secretary of State.

It should at this point be observed that her opponent is a shameless con artist who has built an empire bilking people with fake businesses, fake universities, fake charities and, now, a fake campaign. Last week, he told a lie every three minutes and fifteen seconds. Oh, and did we mention that he, (like so many of his online “supporters,”) is a goddamnRussian stooge? I tried to list all of the dumb, awful stuff that he does every day and I cannot come close to keeping up.

Voters, it seems, are his easiest marks yet.

And it isn’t just Republicans. The double standards are even more transparent on the left.

Back in the mid-90s, Clinton’s persistent unwillingness to hide the fact that she was a thinking human female really freaked the center-left establishment out. Michael Moore observed that, “[Maureen Dowd] is fixated on trashing Hillary Rodham in the way liberals love to do, to prove they’re not really liberal.” The bashing slowly morphed into a creepy, extraordinary sort of policing.

Since then, Clinton racked up a Senate voting record more liberal than any nominee since Mondale. Her 2008 platform was slightly to Obama’s left on domestic issues. Her 2016 platform was barely to the right of self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders.

Yet, we have all heard and seen countless liberal posers passionately decrying her “far right voting record,” untrustworthy promises or ever-changing policy positions. Jon Stewart recently called Clinton, “A bright woman without the courage of her convictions, because I don’t know what they even are.” Because if he doesn’t know, she must not have any, right?

In fact, there is a very lengthy trail of public records all pointing in the same direction. If you can’t figure out which, maybe the problem is you.

Yet, many on the left who gladly voted for John Kerry, two years after hevoted to authorize the Iraq war, now say they couldn’t possibly vote for Clinton, because she did, too.

And view her with contempt for opposing same-sex marriage in 2008, while fawning over men like Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders, who held the same position at the same time.

It’s time to stop pretending that this is about substance. This is about an eagerness to believe that a woman who seeks power will say or do anything to get it. This is about a Lady MacBeth stereotype that, frankly, should never have existed in the first place. This is about the one thing no one wants to admit it’s about.

Consider, for a moment, two people. One, as a young woman at the beginning of a promising legal career, went door to door searching for ways to guarantee an education to the countless disabled and disadvantaged children who had fallen through the cracks. The other, as a young millionaire, exacted revenge on his recently deceased brother’s family by cutting off the medical insurance desperately needed by his nephew’s newborn son, who at eighteen months of age was suffering from violent seizures brought on by a rare neurological disorder.

What kind of a society treats these two people as equal in any way? What kind of society even considers the latter over the former for its highest office?

Generations from now, people will shake their heads at this moment in time, when the first female major party presidential nominee—competent, qualified and more thoroughly vetted than any non-incumbent candidate in history—endured the humiliation of being likened to such an obvious grifter, ignoramus and hate monger.

We deserve the shame that we will bear.



The GOP propaganda machine, and the cowardly corporate media and politicians that allow this to pass are a disgrace.

Why do Clinton supporters always sound like Mafia lawyers?

There is no double standard. Five of Clinton's closest advisers in the State Department demanded immunity from prosecution before talking to the FBI. No one demands immunity from prosecution unless they know they have engaged in criminal activity. This calls for a special prosecutor to find out just how deeply involved Hillary was in all this criminal activity with her top staff.

Another GOP investigation into Hillary Clinton? How many does that make? 20? 50? 100?

The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. When is enough?

It took a long time to get John Gotti, too.

 

[rdean]

Stop Pretending You Don't Know Why People Hate Hillary Clinton | Huffington Post

When the Bush administration was discovered to have erased millions of emails illegally sent by 22 administration officials through private, RNC-owned accounts, in order to thwart an investigation into the politically motivated firing of eight US attorneys, just one talk show covered it that Sunday.

When Mitt Romney wiped servers, sold government hard drives to his closest aides and spent $100,000 in taxpayer money to destroy his administration’s emails, it was barely an issue.

When Hillary Clinton asked Colin Powell how he managed to use a Blackberry while serving as Secretary of State, he replied by detailing his method of intentionally bypassing federal record-keeping laws:





I didn’t have a Blackberry. What I did do was have a personal computer that was hooked up to a private phone line (sounds ancient.) So I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without it going through the State Department servers. I even used it to do business with some foreign leaders and some of the senior folks in the Department on their personal email accounts. I did the same thing on the road in hotels.

... There is a real danger. If it is public that you have a BlackBerry and it it [sic] government and you are using it, government or not, to do business, it may become an official record and subject to the law.





Yet the fact that Hillary Clinton emailed through a private server anddidn’t use it to cover anything up is somehow the defining issue of her campaign. “My God,” people cry, “anyone else would be in jail!”

Or is the real scandal that her family runs but does not profit from a charitable foundation awarded an A grade by Charity Watch, a four out of four star rating by Charity Navigator and responsible for helping 435 million people in 180 countries get things like clean drinking water and HIV medication? Because the AP seems super concerned that she encountered people who donated to it—specifically Nobel Peace Prize-winning economist Muhammad Yunus—in her official capacity as Secretary of State.

It should at this point be observed that her opponent is a shameless con artist who has built an empire bilking people with fake businesses, fake universities, fake charities and, now, a fake campaign. Last week, he told a lie every three minutes and fifteen seconds. Oh, and did we mention that he, (like so many of his online “supporters,”) is a goddamnRussian stooge? I tried to list all of the dumb, awful stuff that he does every day and I cannot come close to keeping up.

Voters, it seems, are his easiest marks yet.

And it isn’t just Republicans. The double standards are even more transparent on the left.

Back in the mid-90s, Clinton’s persistent unwillingness to hide the fact that she was a thinking human female really freaked the center-left establishment out. Michael Moore observed that, “[Maureen Dowd] is fixated on trashing Hillary Rodham in the way liberals love to do, to prove they’re not really liberal.” The bashing slowly morphed into a creepy, extraordinary sort of policing.

Since then, Clinton racked up a Senate voting record more liberal than any nominee since Mondale. Her 2008 platform was slightly to Obama’s left on domestic issues. Her 2016 platform was barely to the right of self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders.

Yet, we have all heard and seen countless liberal posers passionately decrying her “far right voting record,” untrustworthy promises or ever-changing policy positions. Jon Stewart recently called Clinton, “A bright woman without the courage of her convictions, because I don’t know what they even are.” Because if he doesn’t know, she must not have any, right?

In fact, there is a very lengthy trail of public records all pointing in the same direction. If you can’t figure out which, maybe the problem is you.

Yet, many on the left who gladly voted for John Kerry, two years after hevoted to authorize the Iraq war, now say they couldn’t possibly vote for Clinton, because she did, too.

And view her with contempt for opposing same-sex marriage in 2008, while fawning over men like Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders, who held the same position at the same time.

It’s time to stop pretending that this is about substance. This is about an eagerness to believe that a woman who seeks power will say or do anything to get it. This is about a Lady MacBeth stereotype that, frankly, should never have existed in the first place. This is about the one thing no one wants to admit it’s about.

Consider, for a moment, two people. One, as a young woman at the beginning of a promising legal career, went door to door searching for ways to guarantee an education to the countless disabled and disadvantaged children who had fallen through the cracks. The other, as a young millionaire, exacted revenge on his recently deceased brother’s family by cutting off the medical insurance desperately needed by his nephew’s newborn son, who at eighteen months of age was suffering from violent seizures brought on by a rare neurological disorder.

What kind of a society treats these two people as equal in any way? What kind of society even considers the latter over the former for its highest office?

Generations from now, people will shake their heads at this moment in time, when the first female major party presidential nominee—competent, qualified and more thoroughly vetted than any non-incumbent candidate in history—endured the humiliation of being likened to such an obvious grifter, ignoramus and hate monger.

We deserve the shame that we will bear.



The GOP propaganda machine, and the cowardly corporate media and politicians that allow this to pass are a disgrace.

Why do Clinton supporters always sound like Mafia lawyers?

There is no double standard. Five of Clinton's closest advisers in the State Department demanded immunity from prosecution before talking to the FBI. No one demands immunity from prosecution unless they know they have engaged in criminal activity. This calls for a special prosecutor to find out just how deeply involved Hillary was in all this criminal activity with her top staff.

Another GOP investigation into Hillary Clinton? How many does that make? 20? 50? 100?

The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. When is enough?

It took a long time to get John Gotti, too.

That's the thing. Just "get her"? No matter what? Just "get her"?

What about Trump? We know he's a criminal.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Stop Pretending You Don't Know Why People Hate Hillary Clinton | Huffington Post

When the Bush administration was discovered to have erased millions of emails illegally sent by 22 administration officials through private, RNC-owned accounts, in order to thwart an investigation into the politically motivated firing of eight US attorneys, just one talk show covered it that Sunday.

When Mitt Romney wiped servers, sold government hard drives to his closest aides and spent $100,000 in taxpayer money to destroy his administration’s emails, it was barely an issue.

When Hillary Clinton asked Colin Powell how he managed to use a Blackberry while serving as Secretary of State, he replied by detailing his method of intentionally bypassing federal record-keeping laws:





I didn’t have a Blackberry. What I did do was have a personal computer that was hooked up to a private phone line (sounds ancient.) So I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without it going through the State Department servers. I even used it to do business with some foreign leaders and some of the senior folks in the Department on their personal email accounts. I did the same thing on the road in hotels.

... There is a real danger. If it is public that you have a BlackBerry and it it [sic] government and you are using it, government or not, to do business, it may become an official record and subject to the law.





Yet the fact that Hillary Clinton emailed through a private server anddidn’t use it to cover anything up is somehow the defining issue of her campaign. “My God,” people cry, “anyone else would be in jail!”

Or is the real scandal that her family runs but does not profit from a charitable foundation awarded an A grade by Charity Watch, a four out of four star rating by Charity Navigator and responsible for helping 435 million people in 180 countries get things like clean drinking water and HIV medication? Because the AP seems super concerned that she encountered people who donated to it—specifically Nobel Peace Prize-winning economist Muhammad Yunus—in her official capacity as Secretary of State.

It should at this point be observed that her opponent is a shameless con artist who has built an empire bilking people with fake businesses, fake universities, fake charities and, now, a fake campaign. Last week, he told a lie every three minutes and fifteen seconds. Oh, and did we mention that he, (like so many of his online “supporters,”) is a goddamnRussian stooge? I tried to list all of the dumb, awful stuff that he does every day and I cannot come close to keeping up.

Voters, it seems, are his easiest marks yet.

And it isn’t just Republicans. The double standards are even more transparent on the left.

Back in the mid-90s, Clinton’s persistent unwillingness to hide the fact that she was a thinking human female really freaked the center-left establishment out. Michael Moore observed that, “[Maureen Dowd] is fixated on trashing Hillary Rodham in the way liberals love to do, to prove they’re not really liberal.” The bashing slowly morphed into a creepy, extraordinary sort of policing.

Since then, Clinton racked up a Senate voting record more liberal than any nominee since Mondale. Her 2008 platform was slightly to Obama’s left on domestic issues. Her 2016 platform was barely to the right of self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders.

Yet, we have all heard and seen countless liberal posers passionately decrying her “far right voting record,” untrustworthy promises or ever-changing policy positions. Jon Stewart recently called Clinton, “A bright woman without the courage of her convictions, because I don’t know what they even are.” Because if he doesn’t know, she must not have any, right?

In fact, there is a very lengthy trail of public records all pointing in the same direction. If you can’t figure out which, maybe the problem is you.

Yet, many on the left who gladly voted for John Kerry, two years after hevoted to authorize the Iraq war, now say they couldn’t possibly vote for Clinton, because she did, too.

And view her with contempt for opposing same-sex marriage in 2008, while fawning over men like Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders, who held the same position at the same time.

It’s time to stop pretending that this is about substance. This is about an eagerness to believe that a woman who seeks power will say or do anything to get it. This is about a Lady MacBeth stereotype that, frankly, should never have existed in the first place. This is about the one thing no one wants to admit it’s about.

Consider, for a moment, two people. One, as a young woman at the beginning of a promising legal career, went door to door searching for ways to guarantee an education to the countless disabled and disadvantaged children who had fallen through the cracks. The other, as a young millionaire, exacted revenge on his recently deceased brother’s family by cutting off the medical insurance desperately needed by his nephew’s newborn son, who at eighteen months of age was suffering from violent seizures brought on by a rare neurological disorder.

What kind of a society treats these two people as equal in any way? What kind of society even considers the latter over the former for its highest office?

Generations from now, people will shake their heads at this moment in time, when the first female major party presidential nominee—competent, qualified and more thoroughly vetted than any non-incumbent candidate in history—endured the humiliation of being likened to such an obvious grifter, ignoramus and hate monger.

We deserve the shame that we will bear.



The GOP propaganda machine, and the cowardly corporate media and politicians that allow this to pass are a disgrace.

Why do Clinton supporters always sound like Mafia lawyers?

There is no double standard. Five of Clinton's closest advisers in the State Department demanded immunity from prosecution before talking to the FBI. No one demands immunity from prosecution unless they know they have engaged in criminal activity. This calls for a special prosecutor to find out just how deeply involved Hillary was in all this criminal activity with her top staff.

Another GOP investigation into Hillary Clinton? How many does that make? 20? 50? 100?

The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. When is enough?

It took a long time to get John Gotti, too.

That's the thing. Just "get her"? No matter what? Just "get her"?

What about Trump? We know he's a criminal.

There is no reason to think Trump is a criminal, but we all know Clinton is. It's just that some of care about her being a criminal and some of us, like you, couldn't care less what crimes she has committed.

 

[easyt65]

Hillary is a pathelogically lying, scandalous, treasonous, piece of washington establishment crap.

No propoganda is needed - tge truth is bad enough.

For decades she attacked her husvands victims, her whole publuc life is one scandal after another, and 4 years ago she allied herself with Al Qaeida to help them take over their own country.

No presidential candidate has EVER run a presidential candidacy with so much continuous scandal. If Hillary was a Republican she would have been forced out of the race almost a year ago...and Liberals KNOW it. A Republican candidate with the same history/record would have been crucified by now.

Denying this to be true is as stupid, is as big a lie, as claiming Trump is the best candidate the GOP could possibly ever have run.

 

[francoHFW]

Stop Pretending You Don't Know Why People Hate Hillary Clinton | Huffington Post

When the Bush administration was discovered to have erased millions of emails illegally sent by 22 administration officials through private, RNC-owned accounts, in order to thwart an investigation into the politically motivated firing of eight US attorneys, just one talk show covered it that Sunday.

When Mitt Romney wiped servers, sold government hard drives to his closest aides and spent $100,000 in taxpayer money to destroy his administration’s emails, it was barely an issue.

When Hillary Clinton asked Colin Powell how he managed to use a Blackberry while serving as Secretary of State, he replied by detailing his method of intentionally bypassing federal record-keeping laws:





I didn’t have a Blackberry. What I did do was have a personal computer that was hooked up to a private phone line (sounds ancient.) So I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without it going through the State Department servers. I even used it to do business with some foreign leaders and some of the senior folks in the Department on their personal email accounts. I did the same thing on the road in hotels.

... There is a real danger. If it is public that you have a BlackBerry and it it [sic] government and you are using it, government or not, to do business, it may become an official record and subject to the law.





Yet the fact that Hillary Clinton emailed through a private server anddidn’t use it to cover anything up is somehow the defining issue of her campaign. “My God,” people cry, “anyone else would be in jail!”

Or is the real scandal that her family runs but does not profit from a charitable foundation awarded an A grade by Charity Watch, a four out of four star rating by Charity Navigator and responsible for helping 435 million people in 180 countries get things like clean drinking water and HIV medication? Because the AP seems super concerned that she encountered people who donated to it—specifically Nobel Peace Prize-winning economist Muhammad Yunus—in her official capacity as Secretary of State.

It should at this point be observed that her opponent is a shameless con artist who has built an empire bilking people with fake businesses, fake universities, fake charities and, now, a fake campaign. Last week, he told a lie every three minutes and fifteen seconds. Oh, and did we mention that he, (like so many of his online “supporters,”) is a goddamnRussian stooge? I tried to list all of the dumb, awful stuff that he does every day and I cannot come close to keeping up.

Voters, it seems, are his easiest marks yet.

And it isn’t just Republicans. The double standards are even more transparent on the left.

Back in the mid-90s, Clinton’s persistent unwillingness to hide the fact that she was a thinking human female really freaked the center-left establishment out. Michael Moore observed that, “[Maureen Dowd] is fixated on trashing Hillary Rodham in the way liberals love to do, to prove they’re not really liberal.” The bashing slowly morphed into a creepy, extraordinary sort of policing.

Since then, Clinton racked up a Senate voting record more liberal than any nominee since Mondale. Her 2008 platform was slightly to Obama’s left on domestic issues. Her 2016 platform was barely to the right of self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders.

Yet, we have all heard and seen countless liberal posers passionately decrying her “far right voting record,” untrustworthy promises or ever-changing policy positions. Jon Stewart recently called Clinton, “A bright woman without the courage of her convictions, because I don’t know what they even are.” Because if he doesn’t know, she must not have any, right?

In fact, there is a very lengthy trail of public records all pointing in the same direction. If you can’t figure out which, maybe the problem is you.

Yet, many on the left who gladly voted for John Kerry, two years after hevoted to authorize the Iraq war, now say they couldn’t possibly vote for Clinton, because she did, too.

And view her with contempt for opposing same-sex marriage in 2008, while fawning over men like Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders, who held the same position at the same time.

It’s time to stop pretending that this is about substance. This is about an eagerness to believe that a woman who seeks power will say or do anything to get it. This is about a Lady MacBeth stereotype that, frankly, should never have existed in the first place. This is about the one thing no one wants to admit it’s about.

Consider, for a moment, two people. One, as a young woman at the beginning of a promising legal career, went door to door searching for ways to guarantee an education to the countless disabled and disadvantaged children who had fallen through the cracks. The other, as a young millionaire, exacted revenge on his recently deceased brother’s family by cutting off the medical insurance desperately needed by his nephew’s newborn son, who at eighteen months of age was suffering from violent seizures brought on by a rare neurological disorder.

What kind of a society treats these two people as equal in any way? What kind of society even considers the latter over the former for its highest office?

Generations from now, people will shake their heads at this moment in time, when the first female major party presidential nominee—competent, qualified and more thoroughly vetted than any non-incumbent candidate in history—endured the humiliation of being likened to such an obvious grifter, ignoramus and hate monger.

We deserve the shame that we will bear.



The GOP propaganda machine, and the cowardly corporate media and politicians that allow this to pass are a disgrace.

Why do Clinton supporters always sound like Mafia lawyers?

There is no double standard. Five of Clinton's closest advisers in the State Department demanded immunity from prosecution before talking to the FBI. No one demands immunity from prosecution unless they know they have engaged in criminal activity. This calls for a special prosecutor to find out just how deeply involved Hillary was in all this criminal activity with her top staff.

Another GOP investigation into Hillary Clinton? How many does that make? 20? 50? 100?

The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. When is enough?

It took a long time to get John Gotti, too.

That's the thing. Just "get her"? No matter what? Just "get her"?

What about Trump? We know he's a criminal.

There is no reason to think Trump is a criminal, but we all know Clinton is. It's just that some of care about her being a criminal and some of us, like you, couldn't care less what crimes she has committed.

I believe in the US justice system, not bs unproven propaganda, dupe. Trump is at least immoral a liar, and unprepared. But the worst is his policy- cutting taxes on the rich and deregulating Wall St AGAIN.

 

[bodecea]

I don't hate Hillary. I just believe her to be a criminal bitch who in 25 years of public "service" has produced nothing of value to anyone but herself, and managed to bribe/threaten enough people to keep her Montana-sized buttocks out of prison.

How's those indictments coming?

 

[francoHFW]

Hillary is a pathelogically lying, scandalous, treasonous, piece of washington establishment crap.

No propoganda is needed - tge truth is bad enough.

For decades she attacked her husvands victims, her whole publuc life is one scandal after another, and 4 years ago she allied herself with Al Qaeida to help them take over their own country.

No presidential candidate has EVER run a presidential candidacy with so much continuous scandal. If Hillary was a Republican she would have been forced out of the race almost a year ago...and Liberals KNOW it. A Republican candidate with the same history/record would have been crucified by now.

Denying this to be true is as stupid, is as big a lie, as claiming Trump is the best candidate the GOP could possibly ever have run.

So much continuous bs for the dupes, you mean, dupe.

 

[francoHFW]

Hillary is a pathelogically lying, scandalous, treasonous, piece of washington establishment crap.

No propoganda is needed - tge truth is bad enough.

For decades she attacked her husvands victims, her whole publuc life is one scandal after another, and 4 years ago she allied herself with Al Qaeida to help them take over their own country.

No presidential candidate has EVER run a presidential candidacy with so much continuous scandal. If Hillary was a Republican she would have been forced out of the race almost a year ago...and Liberals KNOW it. A Republican candidate with the same history/record would have been crucified by now.

Denying this to be true is as stupid, is as big a lie, as claiming Trump is the best candidate the GOP could possibly ever have run.

Decades? LOL
What country is Al Qaeda's? Ay caramba.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Why do Clinton supporters always sound like Mafia lawyers?

There is no double standard. Five of Clinton's closest advisers in the State Department demanded immunity from prosecution before talking to the FBI. No one demands immunity from prosecution unless they know they have engaged in criminal activity. This calls for a special prosecutor to find out just how deeply involved Hillary was in all this criminal activity with her top staff.

Another GOP investigation into Hillary Clinton? How many does that make? 20? 50? 100?

The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. When is enough?

It took a long time to get John Gotti, too.

That's the thing. Just "get her"? No matter what? Just "get her"?

What about Trump? We know he's a criminal.

There is no reason to think Trump is a criminal, but we all know Clinton is. It's just that some of care about her being a criminal and some of us, like you, couldn't care less what crimes she has committed.

I believe in the US justice system, not bs unproven propaganda, dupe. Trump is at least immoral a liar, and unprepared. But the worst is his policy- cutting taxes on the rich and deregulating Wall St AGAIN.

Reagan rescued America from the stagnant economy and high inflation of the 1960's and 1970's by cutting taxes and lowering some regulations that led to the prosperity of the 1980's and financed the tech boom of the 1990's. Hillary's plan to tax away investment capital from the private sector and give it to politicians and government bureaucrats to spend on politically popular projects is a formula for returning us to the economic doldrums and inflation of the 1970's.

 

[easyt65]

Hillary is a POS, and you know it. Everyone knows it.

You pull for her because she's a Democrat - Got it. She's still a POS.

You pull for her because you hate Trump - Got it. She's still a POS.

 

[easyt65]

Hillary is a pathelogically lying, scandalous, treasonous, piece of washington establishment crap.

No propoganda is needed - tge truth is bad enough.

For decades she attacked her husvands victims, her whole publuc life is one scandal after another, and 4 years ago she allied herself with Al Qaeida to help them take over their own country.

No presidential candidate has EVER run a presidential candidacy with so much continuous scandal. If Hillary was a Republican she would have been forced out of the race almost a year ago...and Liberals KNOW it. A Republican candidate with the same history/record would have been crucified by now.

Denying this to be true is as stupid, is as big a lie, as claiming Trump is the best candidate the GOP could possibly ever have run.

Decades? LOL
What country is Al Qaeda's? Ay caramba.

Libya, dumbass.

She and Barry supplued them, armed them, dragged the US into an un-sanctioned war to help them. They trained and armed Ambassador Stephen's assassins!

 

[francoHFW]

Another GOP investigation into Hillary Clinton? How many does that make? 20? 50? 100?

The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. When is enough?

It took a long time to get John Gotti, too.

That's the thing. Just "get her"? No matter what? Just "get her"?

What about Trump? We know he's a criminal.

There is no reason to think Trump is a criminal, but we all know Clinton is. It's just that some of care about her being a criminal and some of us, like you, couldn't care less what crimes she has committed.

I believe in the US justice system, not bs unproven propaganda, dupe. Trump is at least immoral a liar, and unprepared. But the worst is his policy- cutting taxes on the rich and deregulating Wall St AGAIN.

Reagan rescued America from the stagnant economy and high inflation of the 1960's and 1970's by cutting taxes and lowering some regulations that led to the prosperity of the 1980's and financed the tech boom of the 1990's. Hillary's plan to tax away investment capital from the private sector and give it to politicians and government bureaucrats to spend on politically popular projects is a formula for returning us to the economic doldrums and inflation of the 1970's.

Reagan also tripled the debt and had the S+L bubble, and his policies roll on, wrecking the middle class and the countries, all to save the bloated rich.

 

[easyt65]

Obama added more debt than every president. Hillary is Barry 2.0.

 

[francoHFW]

Hillary is a pathelogically lying, scandalous, treasonous, piece of washington establishment crap.

No propoganda is needed - tge truth is bad enough.

For decades she attacked her husvands victims, her whole publuc life is one scandal after another, and 4 years ago she allied herself with Al Qaeida to help them take over their own country.

No presidential candidate has EVER run a presidential candidacy with so much continuous scandal. If Hillary was a Republican she would have been forced out of the race almost a year ago...and Liberals KNOW it. A Republican candidate with the same history/record would have been crucified by now.

Denying this to be true is as stupid, is as big a lie, as claiming Trump is the best candidate the GOP could possibly ever have run.

Decades? LOL
What country is Al Qaeda's? Ay caramba.

Libya, dumbass.

She and Barry supplued them, armed them, dragged the US into an un-sanctioned war to help them. They trained and armed Ambassador Stephen's assassins!

BS. Now dying off in Sirte.

 

[easyt65]

NOT BS - FACT...and even YOU know it.

 

[francoHFW]

Hillary is a POS, and you know it. Everyone knows it.

You pull for her because she's a Democrat - Got it. She's still a POS.

You pull for her because you hate Trump - Got it. She's still a POS.

BS GOP propaganda only...Ever heard of policy, dupe of the greedy idiot rich GOP.?

 

[easyt65]

Peddle that denial crap elsewhere, Franco. You KNOW Barry & Hillary aided Al Qaeida...just like you KNOW they supplied, armed, and aided ISIS. It's a known, published, proven FACT. Everyone knows it. Libs don't like it, hate to talk about it, deny it, and defend them...but they still KNOW it!