A President Clinton would be out of control

[kindy64]

An interesting voting strategy from Glenn Reynolds "if you don’t like either of them, then you should vote for the one least likely to get away with things."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/20.../93006320/

It won’t be that way with a President Trump. This isn’t because Trump is any less arrogant than Clinton (though it would be hard to be more arrogant). It’s because more people will be willing to tell Trump no. The civil service, which leans overwhelmingly Democratic, won’t be bending over backwards to do his will. The press can’t stand him. And the Congress, even if controlled by the GOP, won’t support him if he misbehaves because so many Republicans dislike him, too.

The truth is, neither one of our leading candidates for president is a paragon of virtue. But only one of them has already made a habit of flouting the law while in office, selling favors and escaping the consequences, and only one of them is likely to be able to pull it off from the White House.

And that’s the problem. If Secretary of State Clinton, serving under a president and with an eye on winning a second term in the White House, wasn’t constrained by the rules, who will constrain her if she’s president?

The answer, most likely, is nobody. And, once again, we’ll all be paying the price.

[Chase]

If you want to vote for President Pussy-Grabber go ahead, that's your right as an American citizen. I'll be voting for the lady whose tax plan won't bankrupt this country.

[meridannight]

While we're on this topic -- would someone want to explain to me what this current investigation on Clinton's email server is about? I see the headlines all over the place, but it doesn't really make sense to me, and I'm not in the mood to read all the background pertaining to it. Would just like someone to sum it up for me.

[East]

While we're on this topic -- would someone want to explain to me what this current investigation on Clinton's email server is about? I see the headlines all over the place, but it doesn't really make sense to me, and I'm not in the mood to read all the background pertaining to it. Would just like someone to sum it up for me.

It is a political ploy. There is nothing at all that warranted the announcement and it is against the rules of the FBI to interfere with an election within 60 days of the election......

They don't have any evidence of anything...it is about what "might" be there....

BTW...Trump goes on trial in December for ripping off all of the students of his fake university..and again later int he month for the rape of a 13 year old girl...these trial dates are already set. I love how people ignore all of this stuff to somehow make him "OK" when he is the most unfit person to assume the office and if that happens...the people who helped him get in that have even a shred of a soul left will get a shock eventually...unfortunatley all the rest of us and probably the rest of the world will do down with the ship....I have already accepted that if he wins. I am old enough and have already lived a good life....

This is what the Clinton smear campaign is all about..alot of innuendo and mights. If you check on snopes.com for Clinton conspiracy theories..you will see that most of them are false. It doesn't matter though...alot of people have convicted her in their mind so anything adverse they hear just "confirms" what they already "know"

I understand this phenomenon very well because I had the same thing with Reagan. If you told me he ate little children I would believe it because it fit the narrative in my mind about who he was..but thanks to Bernie Bros this year...I gave myself a smack down and I was all of a sudden embarrassed because I saw myself..like a mirror...because I demonized Reagan so badly..and after a month of looking at what I did..the mirror cracked and I let it go....

I had a rabid hate of Reagan for most of my adult life....it's gone now...

Back to your question..both snopes.com and Politifact are non partisan and neutral sites that will give you the correct information on any given situation.

[Cobalt]

Gotta be kidding me....

[kindy64]

While we're on this topic -- would someone want to explain to me what this current investigation on Clinton's email server is about? I see the headlines all over the place, but it doesn't really make sense to me, and I'm not in the mood to read all the background pertaining to it. Would just like someone to sum it up for me.

650,000 emails between Hillary and her aide Huma were found on the family laptop, after Huma testified that ALL devices with email were turned over.

[kindy64]

Back to your question..both snopes.com and Politifact are non partisan and neutral sites that will give you the correct information on any given situation.

Neither of those sites are non-partisan or neutral when it comes to political "fact" checking.

[artyboy]

Lmao like reading a comedy lol.

What the fuck is going on? All this national socialism is starting to become a joke. The Russians must be laughing their heads off. Putin is doing more damage than the USSR had done in 70 old years it was in power lol.

The West looks so weak at the moment..

[East]

Neither of those sites are non-partisan or neutral when it comes to political "fact" checking.

False...but I don't care if you need to believe they are biased...it's your call....

[meridannight]

650,000 emails between Hillary and her aide Huma were found on the family laptop, after Huma testified that ALL devices with email were turned over.

Okay. Still confused -- what emails, and turned over to whom? I have absolutely no background on this, I have no idea what emails are being talked about and why it is so important that they are on someone's laptop....