When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

I have never heard of a politician who is not a liar--it's not genetic, it's just in the nature of the profession. Claiming it's genetic because she married Bill Clinton is just idiotic.

Has Donald Trump lied? Well, he's not a billionaire, not even close. His alleged business experience consists of running several companies into the ground, and filing for bankruptcy protection for his businesses (which is legalized theft of the money you owe your creditors) four times. Trump has never held political office and has demonstrated throughout this campaign that he can't get along with the members of his party, never mind everyone else.

Grow up, all politicians lie. Trump is definitely the least qualified candidate to come down the pike in a long damned time.

In other words, you've got nothing but speculation about "inner motives" with no evidence of actual wrongdoing.

I love how you turn normally admirable traits against folks, too.

"Obama loyalist"

Gee. What an indictment.

You're a Republican loyalist, aren't you?

Loyalty. Good for Republicans. Bad for Democrats.

You bleeding heart liberal apologists are all the same... You asked for a video of Hillary Clinton saying that an internet video was responsible for the attack you are provided with that video of her saying in her own words to the country and to the relatives at the memorial that it was a an internet video that was responsible... You got your answer but you can't accept it. There is also an email to her daughter and evidence that she told the Egyptian president that it was a terrorist attack... That's not speculation that's a fact. So if you can accept the facts then live in your own little fantasy world where Hillary Clinton as pure as the driven snow... People get the government they deserve.

Quote Blickers:

Quote oralloy:
Several of those investigations were in the majority Republican House, by a majority Republican committee, with a majority Republican chairman. Still found squat. Apparently your game is to say that if any Democrats at all are involved in an investigation, even on a minority level, the investigation must be considered invalid unless it comes to a damaging conclusion against the Democrat being investigated. If that happens, the involvement of Democrats in the investigation will be overlooked.

While you're at it, why not move to make it a Constitutional Amendment that from now on, all investigations will be conducted solely by members of the Republican Party with Democrats locked out of the room while the investigations proceed? It'll be more honest on your part.

Quote Blickers:

Quote oralloy:

So now the father of the family fulfilling his traditional role of speaking for the family on business and public matters constitutes an "Islamic crimes and abuses"? Up until fifty years ago or so, that's the way it was in mostly Christian America, and it is still that way for many Christians here now-the man is recognized as the head of the family. Are these families committing Christian crimes and abuses? Following your logic, the answer would appear to be "yes".

Quote oralloy:
Neither do the Khans. And in the past, Christians have done these things. Check out the Inquisition. Check out the American settlers who gave the Native Americans the chance to drop their own religion and adopt Christianity or have their villages burned down. Or the town of Beziers, France in 1209, where the Cathars gained converts and the Pope sent Arnaud-Amaury to clean out the heretics. When asked how the Catholic Army was supposed to tell the Catholics from the Cathars while they ransacked the town, Arnaud-Amaury said, "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out". 7,000 people were slaughtered in Beziers. Some Muslims do these things now because Islam is located in some poor countries whose technology and political systems are straight from the Middle Ages, so they have some Muslims who act the same way Christians acted during the Middle Ages. That doesn't mean every Muslim acts like Christians did during the Inquisition, although that is what you are implying.

And that is what is what Trump is counting on, that people will think like you. That a Christian can never do wrong, and a Muslim can never do right-even if it's a Muslim family standing up for the memory of their Muslim son who died trying to save the lives of his fellow American soldiers. Shame on you.

What I wrote was accurate and truthful. The evidence suggesting, as a minimum, a conscious effort on ther part of the Administration to disguise the real source of an attack of our embassy annex, and the murder of four Americans, including our ambassador, on the anniversasry of the 9/11 attack, and just before our presidentisal election is very strong indeed. Just as is the indirect assistance of the then Secretary of State in continuing and reinforcing a deception which she had separately and previously indicated in her official coirrespondence was a lie.

You are merely trying to cloud the obvious conclusion. Calling Rice an Obama loyalist was merely a fact and implied nothing beyond her likely motivation in the deception.

Yeah, well, there are folks who think there's evidence suggesting that the moon landing was a hoax, and that Elvis is living a quiet life as a gardener at Graceland.

Good luck with your obsession; the rest of us ain't got time for that.

Blah Blah Blah Benghazi Blah Blah Blah Benghazi Blah Blah

Last three polls listed on Real Clear Politics:
NBC News / Wall St. Journal.......Clinton + 9
Fox News....................................Clinton +10
McClatchy / Marist.....................Clinton +15

Just announced:

255,000 new jobs added in July
306,000 new Full Time jobs added in July, (apparently some part-timers got switched to Full Time, which often happens when things are economically rising)
Inflation-adjusted Median Weekly Earnings at highest level in 1o years.

LOL... The slowest economic recovery since 1949... 1.2% economic growth this last quarter... Compliments of Obama.

Is that the result of the aging of the population? Can you provide some numbers by age?

That, of course reminds us that ten years ago, during the Bush presidency and just two years before the hapless Obama took office, median earnings were actually higher than they are today. At a mere 2% annual growth rate our economy and average wages would now be almost 22% higher than they were ten years ago, The collapse of the government aided real estate bubble in 2007 of course played a big role in the setback, but the wage reduction then was far less than 22%, and all this reflects the fact that we have seen, and are continuing to see, the weakest recovery this country has seen from any recession since WWII. This is of course an obvious result of the exploding regulatory reach of a Federal government more interested in expanding its own power and directing our lives than the safety and welfare of the people it presumes to protect.

It appears Blickers may be better at cutting and pasting charts than understanding the math behind them,

Are you blaming this on the democrats?

This, of course, reminds us that during the appalling Bush presidency, and one year before Obama took office, the nation experienced the worst recession in living memory.

35 year trend is wage stagnation.
http://www.epi.org/publication/stagnant-wages-in-2014/

There are many assumptions for the cause of wage stagnation. I believe it's a combination of immigration and globalization. To remain competitive in the world marketplace, our wages can't be too much higher than our competitive partners.

Cheap labor countries have an advantage to the extent that their products can be sold at cheaper prices. If their quality is good, it's going to be difficult to compete with them.

That's the reason China's GDP has been growing the fastest.

Money created as notes and coins Money created electronically through banks Doubled in seven years So Where did all this money Go? From 1997-2007 the new money banks lent out was divided up like this: see where the money went 40% 37% 13% 10%
40% of this new money went into the property market through mortgage lending, causing house prices to balloon while wages remained stagnant. 37% of this new money went into financial markets, fueling speculation and a bloated financial sector.
10% of the new money came as credit card debt and personal loans This irresponsible lending leads to defaults and crisis, and once a financial crisis begins, this system only makes it worse.
The financial crisis happened because banks were able to create too much money, too quickly, and used it to push up house prices and speculate on financial markets.

Depends on what you mean by living memory. The "malaise" and economnic sclerosis under the Carter presidency were far worse and he is still alive.

Admit Clinton lied to the families. Admit she lied about e-mails. Don't make excuses for liars.

Agree trump may be least qualified candidate. Admit Hillary is also not qualified, then you would be acting as the adult in this conversation.

Great stat you've got there. Do you realize that, in one month, the Labor Force Participation Rate will stay exactly the same if:
A) One Million workers get jobs,
or
B) One Millon workers lose their job.

The Labor Force Participation Rate will be exactly the same. So what freaking good is it, genius?

Quote Blickers:

In response, quote georgeob1:

You ought to be ashamed of yourself, george. When something is at the highest level in 10 years, it means that at no point in the previous 10 years has it been at a higher level than it is now. It does NOT mean that under Bush 10 years ago, it was at a higher level-quite the opposite. Even a 10 year old wouldn't make that mistake.

Considering the plotz you made in your opening sentence, the reader can dismiss the rest of your economic bloviations for obvious reasons.

Quote georgeob1:

I didn't cut and paste anything. I simply wrote down the stats as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. For Full Time jobs I had to subtract June's total from July's to arrive at the number myself, something someone like you would simply not dare to do. If the sum is not quoted in an approved right wing source, people like you feel they're dirty if they use it. Your function here appears to be little more than a quote machine from the usual right wing sources. God forbid if you actually went ahead and thought independently, even if your independence only consisted of looking up a statistic from the official source without proper right-wing media guidance to help you "understand".

The reason for the post was to show giujohn there's a reason for slow economic growth. With boomers falling out there will automatically be less economic growth.

And you thought I posted it just so you could be condescending to me? Nope.