The hate is STRONG with this one........ I don't necessarily like the Clintons, but they are MUCH better than anything the republicans have.
Your post did not suggest that you don't like the Clintons. Not only that it sounded like you are praising them without merit with your claim that they never broke the law. Are you SURE you want to stick by that claim? I wouldn't even be surprised if Bernie broke the law before. The Clintons definitely bended the law in their favor through out their careers.
Thanks for responding, I didn't mean to lump you with the MSM but I didn't make that clear in the post. Apologies.
The proven lies under oath are Bill's. Don't worry though, I think Hillary will get her chance to lie under oath as well... and she will.
Like we have degrees in murder cases (1st degree-involuntary manslaughter), there should also be degrees of lying. Lying a about getting a blowjob as it relates to your ability to perform as the commander in chief is lying in the 10th degree. It's irrelevant and doesn't impact my daily life. Lying about weapons of mass destruction is lying in the 2nd degree and in part blew up the economy and helped lead the country into recession and very much impacted my daily life. If you live in a world of black/white, the Clinton's are not white. Granted. But their indiscretions aren't of the nature that impact my life. Conversely, Trump may very well lead America into war and/or blow up the economy. Left to his own morals, he'd literally find ways imprison any people of color (starting with a fence). Comparing Clinton to Trump is like comparing Eddie Haskell to the Hitler. Both bad, one is exponentially worse.
This is misleading. That makes it sound like he was standing trial or being deposed about a blowjob. What was actually happening is that he was being accused of sexual harassment and it open court, grand jury testimony and recorded depositions lied about having an affair to support his case that he wouldn't harass someone because he wouldn't cheat on his wife.
Ummm....would not this not just be an explanation of the generational divide in this campaign? I mean, a lot of the MSM has painted this as Hillary winning minorities and women and Bernie winning white males but the hard data suggests that Bernie does well with people 45 and under and Hillary does better with older voters who also consistently vote in larger numbers. They are also less likely to use social media frequently and may not be the activist/high-energy type that some of the younger voters are. It's not crazy. But sure, believe what you want to believe. And if this is true (which I sincerely doubt) I would recommend that any Clinton supporter stand up for their candidate and be willing to discuss and support Hillary. Democracy is private and quiet only when you cast your ballot. Everything else is noisy and vibrant.
So there's two ways to analyze the competency of a candidate, their ability to campaign and their record. You and me disagree on Hillary's and Bernie's record, and that debate can go all night long, not worth getting into. However, as a campaigner, he is far superior to Clinton. He has an ability to communicate his passion with people, and if you don't understand that, you're just so used to focus-group garbage candidates that you're turned off by the real deal. You have to be able to communicate and connect with people if you want to win. End.Of.Story. Look at Obama. No real history at the federal level when he won but he could communicate. Hillary couldn't, and a former first lady and two-term senator lost to a first-term senator people had barely heard of. Now, he did it with god-like oratory skills and thus, he is perhaps the greatest campaigner in modern history. Now, is Bernie in the same league as Obama? No. He's wacky, rough around the edges to say the least and speaks at pretty much one decibel level. He's also "elderly" as you put it, idk why that's important considering he's 74 and Clinton is 69. But at the end of the day, he is relatable. His imperfections, goofiness, are his strengths. And they draw a sharp contrast with his rigid, stern, and often cold opponent. So yes, part of Bernie's success is the foil-like presence that Hillary has provided. But you barely giving any credit (pretty much no credit in your post but I'll give you the "barely" since I'm sure you'll spin it somehow) to Bernie the man is stupid. Not ridiculous, not uninformed, just plain stupid. This rule however, may have one exception. And that ironically, is Hillary Clinton. Her public notoriety built up over the years, combined with the support of the powers at be, has likely delivered her the nomination. She lacks any sizeable ability to excite people, bring apathetic voters into the political process, or truly connect with people. And it has NOTHING to do with being a woman. I can connect with Elizabeth Warren, I do not feel that with Hillary Clinton. I'm not even sure she believes in what she's saying. Jon Stewart said it best: "What I think about Hillary Clinton is...a very bright woman without the courage of her convictions because I'm not even sure what they are". And that, more than anything...more than the general election polls, more than the unfavorability numbers, might be the reason she ends up losing the general elections. I worry very much that we have nominated a candidate whose best tactic for the general is "you can't vote for the other guy, he's bat***** crazy". Energy, passion, communication, relatability, is what wins elections. Hillary may lack all of these things. I hope the powers at be come together and find a way to push her over the top. Lol, I'm rooting for the establishment now, talk about hypocrisy smh
Clinton has been a loud and strong supporter of the LGBTTQQIAAP community since 2013. Anyone arguing against that fact is a fool.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wWwOAsow_C0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Very true, no matter what you think of her, Hillary made history. We will see if she will make even bigger history by becoming the first female president.
The "victim" never accused Bill Clinton of anything and she was of consensual age. The Republicans set off a 6 years witch hunt led by Ken Star starting with White Water but they could never get anything to stick until Lewinski. So again, the Lewinski scandal had no bearing on my life. GWB's poor handling of the unfunded Iraq war impacted my life greatly. The point being, Hillary may have some sleazy characteristics but none of which are of national importance. Trump, conversely could bring the country to its knees in short order.
Really? The SOS keeping classified information on a server in her home is not of National Importance? I don't understand how people can be so deluded. Hillary in her career as a politician has literally taken every position on every topic dictated by what she thought would be in her own best interest. She is the absolute worst of our political culture, having nothing but personal ambition to drive her, not morals, not honor, not character, not integrity, not values, nothing but pure political ambition. Any of the things that Trump has said that piss people off would come flying out of Hillary's mouth the instant she thought it would be good for her political career. Trump on the other hand has some level of integrity which would keep him from totally changing who he is to fit a political persona that could be elected.
I actually completely agree with you on Clinton. But, I don't see how you ignore these same traits in Trump. The only distinction I can really make is that Trump's ambition is egocentric and not political. His shortfalls are the same regarding morals, honor, character, integrity, and values, and perhaps only more severe. Ok, so Trump isn't quite the chameleon that Clinton is -- he's being his usual distasteful self instead of trying to pretend like he's something more sanitized. I can't manage to chalk that up as a credit to him. That he's unashamed of being a terrible person doesn't make it better.
