I'll Never Vote for Hillary Clinton

@JPB,

Quote JPB:

Quote:

I was never a Bill fan, still not a Bill fan, and if we're electing "The Clintons" then it's just one more reason that I mostly agree with the title of this thread.

That's perfectly all right. If you think we can do better than 16 Million Full Time jobs in two terms, by all means, vote for someone else. All races total increased their Full Time jobs by 16%, which is great, and African Americans increased their Full Time jobs by 30%, which is truly remarkable. Not to mention the aforementioned foreign policy in Eastern Europe which yielded peace with no loss of American lives, put an end to "ethnic cleansing" and militia bloodletting, and prevented Russia from having an opportunity to move back into the area and re-subjugating Eastern Europe.

The choice is yours.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Like Schweizer, the Times found no hard evidence in the form of an email or any document proving a quid pro quo between the Clintons, Clinton Foundation donors or Russian officials. (Schweizer has maintained that it’s next to impossible to find a smoking gun but said there is a troubling “pattern of behavior” that merits a closer examination.)

****. They're guilty as hell. If they weren't guilty, they wouldn't be hiding their connections to the Putin uranium cartel.

Is it just me, or does it sound more and more in these articles like Putin is a Bond villain?

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

The hillarylynchmob has spoken. You must MUST vote Hillary, no exceptions. No matter she is a war monger and corporate shill.

HillaryLynchMob (TM)

You are approaching Gungasnake levels of derp.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Yeah, to you. That's because I disagree with you. Mustn't allow differing opinions around the site.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, Bill Clinton's Number One advisor was Hillary, and Hillary's Number One advisor will be Bill Clinton.

I disagree. I do think that Bill listened to Hillary. She's a policy wonk type of person, very detailed oriented, up on the facts. I don't know that Hillary will get that much value from Bill. He is a charismatic retail politician focused on the big picture stuff. I don't know that he would be all that useful in plotting tactics.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Yeah, to you. That's because I disagree with you. Mustn't allow differing opinions around the site.

See, that's the derp.

Why would I be on this site if I wasn't interested in differing opinions?

I keep pointing this out to you, but it doesn't seem to sink in.

If you don't want your views challenged, maybe this is the wrong site for you. Or maybe you shouldn't post them on a public message board.

I like having my views challenged. You telling me that I'm just a blind sheeple isn't really challenging my views, though. It's just name calling on your part.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

You can't have it both ways.

If you feel that a person has an incorrect view of what is evil and is voting based upon that, then yes, you are arguing against their voting choice.

2 Replies

@Blickers,

But don't you understand that in itself is a problem. The spouse of the elected official should not be their number 1 advisor. There should be others that they turn to for primary discussions related to how an administration should be run and how it should proceed on various matters.

I do not want former President Clinton being Ms.Clinton's chief advisor should she become President. She should have a properly created Cabinet for that purpose.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Because you people when you attack Sanders always infer we are doing the nation a disservice to not be pro Hillary.

Incidentally, did you notice Biden suddenly talking presidential election and putting himself in the public eye. "I would select Warren as my VP if I were running." I have noted speculation that he may be trying to influence Hillary to accept her, but others are saying establishment Dems are getting worried Hillary will get indicted and want to position Biden to step into her shoes. Don't see how they could insert him without destroying the Democratic party, but it is interesting to speculate.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Because you people when you attack Sanders always infer we are doing the nation a disservice to not be pro Hillary.

"You people?" What kind of people do you think I are? I'm not people, I'm a person.

My beliefs actually align better with Sanders; I just don't think those ideas are mainstream enough right now to make him a viable candidate.

Personally, I think you need to stop lashing out at folks who should be your ideological allies.

2 Replies

@Sturgis,

Rabel wasn't saying the poster couldn't vote however they wished - just commenting re the use of the word evil . maybe I twigged to it that way since I feel the same way - I don't think evil is an appropriate word to describe either Democratic candidate regardless of how someone chooses to vote . I don't want evil devalued as a word with significant meaning.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

I've been shilly shallying since I also align quite a lot more with Sanders, but have doubt about both his electability and his ability to pick the right advisors if elected.

As we all know, I'm chary re Clinton, for other reasons. But, chary is not the right descriptor for Trump, who seems to be swelling in scariness every thirty seconds.
Maybe he will pop.

Anyway, I just called to get the absentee ballot for the primary here, June 7, same as California's.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Quote:

As we all know, I'm chary re Clinton, for other reasons. But, chary is not the right descriptor for Trump, who seems to be swelling in scariness every thirty seconds.
Maybe he will pop.

True, the following is pretty wild.

Donald Trump masqueraded as publicist to brag about himself

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

I must have misread your intent in a post or two. I take you at your word and withdraw what I posted, where you are concerned. My apologies.

0 Replies

@Sturgis,

Quote Sturgis:

Quote:

The spouse of the elected official should not be their number 1 advisor. There should be others that they turn to for primary discussions related to how an administration should be run and how it should proceed on various matters.

I do not want former President Clinton being Ms.Clinton's chief advisor should she become President. She should have a properly created Cabinet for that purpose.

You're way behind the times. For a long, long time Presidents have appointed Chief of Staff, a position which when formed in the beginning was about coordinating White Hose housekeepers, as their main advisor. This has not been a Cabinet position. They haven't relied on only the Cabinet for many many decades. Your husband was a very successful President, it seems impossible that you would not use his advice. They're both pretty well on the same page about most things anyway.

0 Replies

@Sturgis,

Their choice, yes. But not their right to vote as they like. Which is what some on this site has accused me of doing.

0 Replies

More fun with Hill and Bill: http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/hillarys-latest-scandal-she-and-bill-siphoned-100-mil-from-persian-gulf-leaders/

Excerpt:
The investigation by the Daily Caller News Foundation has uncovered a disturbing pattern of the Clintons’ raising money for the Clinton Foundation from regimes that have checkered records on human rights and that aren’t always operating in the best interests of the U.S. By the way, the $100 million we mentioned above doesn’t appear to include another $30 million given to the Clintons by two Mideast-based foundations and four billionaire Saudis.

All told, it’s a lot of money.

“These regimes are buying access,” Patrick Poole, a national security analyst who regularly writes for PJ Media, told the DCNF. “You’ve got the Saudis. You’ve got the Kuwaitis, Oman, Qatar and the UAE (United Arab Emirates). There are massive conflicts of interest. It’s beyond comprehension.”

Well, maybe not, given that Clinton, during her four-year tenure as secretary of state, used a clearly illegal private email server which is now under investigation by the FBI. Her open e-mail system likely was hacked by Chinese, Russian and perhaps other spy agencies, say cyberespionage experts.
_____________________________________________

This person should not have access to the presidency.

2 Replies

Finally, someone in the MSM has the nerve to cite facts about Hillary's claims that her use of her own private server for state business.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/05/11/jake-tapper-fact-check-clinton-emails-origwx-jm.cnn/video/playlists/race-to-2016/

0 Replies

@Lash,

Quote Lash's source:

Quote:

The investigation by the Daily Caller News Foundation.....

Quote The Columbia Journalism Review on The Daily Caller:

Quote:

But when The Daily Caller has reached for the big scoop, the results have been less impressive. Headline-grabbing exclusives—mostly intercepted e-mails and tweets and attacks on media rivals—have exploded across the web before fizzling under scrutiny. Sexed-up headlines burned above stories too twisted or bland to support them. Quotes were ripped out of context, corrections buried, and important disclosures dismissed. It’s a picture that sits uncomfortably alongside the vision laid out by Carlson at CPAC, one that has drummed up clicks but little respect.

Another questionable "news source" blasting the Clintons.

3 Replies

@Blickers,

Quote:

Another questionable "news source" blasting the Clintons.

The thing is, it doesn't matter if it's legitimate news or even if it's remotely true. Just that it blasts the Clintons. That's the criteria for selecting a source.

0 Replies

I'll Never Vote for Hillary Clinton

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know