Republicans created Trump

[The Thriller]

And because she seems to have no problem in providing aide to change regimes in foreign countries, causing them to become more unstable. That alone is the most visible red flag.

What examples do you have for this? I'd like to know which foreign countries and which regimes she has helped to change? I want specifics

And Let me get this straight, republicans are concerning that Hillary is too hawkish? What have they like forgotten the entire Bush regime? Or Reagan? Was Iraq and Iran contra on Obama too? Can we blame the Vietnam and Korean War on Obama? Or Clinton?

I don't get it. You'd think Clinton's "speak softly and carry a big stick" foreign policy would score points with repubs.

So if Clinton is too hawkish, what does that make trump who wants to ban Muslims and bomb the expletive outta the Middle East?

 

[mellow]

2. Soooooo what advantage did that give again? Having a private server allowed Clinton to organize higher speaker fees? Because that couldn't have been done by any other means?

And if Donald Rumsfeld had used a private server while serving as secretry of defense, and lost classified information, and deleted a bunch of emails....you would have been okay with that?

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Again Joe, ask yourself-- why is every elected Republican against that policy? Every Canadian employer is required by law to give employees time off to vote on election day. Your anecdote doesn't answer my question

If it is true that every elected Republican is against that policy (which I doubt), it's probably because they fear that poor people will be in favor of income redistribution. I believe that under the current rules any eligible voter who cares can vote. It does not surprise me that liberals would want to make it practically mandatory for the poor to vote while conservatives would not want to make additional accommodations.

 

[The Thriller]

And if Donald Rumsfeld had used a private server while serving as secretry of defense, and lost classified information, and deleted a bunch of emails....you would have been okay with that?

The Bush Regime DID exactly that. But instead of losing under 10 classified emails, they lost 5 million.

Where was your outrage? Why hasn't the GOP investigated them?

 

[The Thriller]

If it is true that every elected Republican is against that policy (which I doubt), it's probably because they fear that poor people will be in favor of income redistribution. I believe that under the current rules any eligible voter who cares can vote. It does not surprise me that liberals would want to make it practically mandatory for the poor to vote while conservatives would not want to make additional accommodations.

I don't get why you think republicans hate wealth redistribution. They've been redistributing wealth from the poor and middle class to the top since 1980 and I haven't heard a single repub complain.

Why is redistribution of wealth from the wealthy to the other classes so bad yet you make hardly a peep when wealth is redistributed from the poor and middle class to the wealthy?

 

[Jamezz]

And if Donald Rumsfeld had used a private server while serving as secretry of defense, and lost classified information, and deleted a bunch of emails....you would have been okay with that?

Of course he wouldn't, he's the most biased poster I've ever read on JF.

 

[The Thriller]

Of course he wouldn't, he's the most biased poster I've ever read on JF.

Let's look at this honestly:

The Bush White House email controversy surfaced in 2007 during the controversy involving the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available. Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act.[1] Over 5 million emails may have been lost.[2][3] Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove emails, leading to damaging allegations.[4] In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been lost

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

Wait I'm the on being biased here? Where was your outrage over this? Why aren't republicans grilling the bush administration over this?

Come on now, be consistent! Otherwise, you're just being the most biased poster on JF

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

1a. Was there not a video circulating on YouTube infuriating Muslims at this time? Do you deny this? All the reports I've read is that the initial assessments made by intelligence agencies, not the Obama administration, was that the Benghazi attack was in retaliation to that video.

1b. What advantage did that give whether they lied about the cause of Benghazi or not? The Obama administration, not the republican controlled congress which earlier that year had cut security funding and bragged about it on national tv, was still blamed for it.

Repubs act like the Obama administration didn't receive any blame for Benghazi. In reality, no one else has received blame. Sorry, mitt lost because he wasn't very popular. Not because Obama didn't receive adequate blame for Benghazi.

2. Soooooo what advantage did that give again? Having a private server allowed Clinton to organize higher speaker fees? Because that couldn't have been done by any other means?

It really seems like repubs are grasping at straws here. They essentially seem to be sticking their fingers in their ears yelling, "but but but I don't like Hillary!" Stick to the issues. If you can't adequately explain why x issue should be a concern then face the truth: you just don't like Hillary.

But stop cooking up these bogus conspiracies and acting like they're legitimate concerns that most of the nation seems to be ignoring.

1. Hillary, the intelligence agencies and the Obama administration knew that the video was not the impetus for this attack. Terrorist communications were intercepted. They are detailed in the most recent Benghazi report. It was known from very early on that the attack was an organized offensive, not some sort of a spontaneous mob action. They even knew who was behind it. The Obama administration used the video story as cover. Even though that information is now widely available you are apparently choosing not to read it.

1a. The Obama administration has been perceived by many to be weak on terror, especially as it relates to the issue of Islamic involvement. They have always been reluctant to place blame for any terrorism on Islamic extremists because they somehow see that as an indictment of all of Islam. With the election only two months away it appears to many critics that the Obama administration believed it was to their benefit to attempt to minimize the Benghazi issue. They minimized their reaction to it as a result. Unfortunately Americans died and it undoubtedly became a far bigger issue than they would have hoped.

2. It allowed her to protect her communications from discovery. It was successful. She deleted thousands and thousands of emails. The lesson, I guess, is that corruption pays. This is especially true given that so many people like yourself are defending her for it. If her last name wasn't Clinton it would have been the end of her career, though.

 

[Jamezz]

Let's look at this honestly:



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

Wait I'm the on being biased here? Where was your outrage over this? Why aren't republicans grilling the bush administration over this?

Come on now, be consistent! Otherwise, you're just being the most biased poster on JF

For one, I could care less about the Republican party, I look more for the candidates as individuals. And I think that Bush has been one of the worst presidents in US history. Happy? Are YOU ever going to look into the mirror?

 

[The Thriller]

1. Hillary, the intelligence agencies and the Obama administration knew that the video was not the impetus for this attack. Terrorist communications were intercepted. They are detailed in the most recent Benghazi report. It was known from very early on that the attack was an organized offensive, not some sort of a spontaneous mob action. They even knew who was behind it. The Obama administration used the video story as cover. Even though that information is now widely available you are apparently choosing not to read it.

1a. The Obama administration has been perceived by many to be weak on terror, especially as it relates to the issue of Islamic involvement. They have always been reluctant to place blame for any terrorism on Islamic extremists because they somehow see that as an indictment of all of Islam. With the election only two months away it appears to many critics that the Obama administration believed it was to their benefit to attempt to minimize the Benghazi issue. They minimized their reaction to it as a result. Unfortunately Americans died and it undoubtedly became a far bigger issue than they would have hoped.

2. It allowed her to protect her communications from discovery. It was successful. She deleted thousands and thousands of emails. The lesson, I guess, is that corruption pays. This is especially true given that so many people like yourself are defending her for it. If her last name wasn't Clinton it would have been the end of her career, though.

1. Again, what advantage would this have given to them? The Obama administration, not the republican controlled Congress with cut their funding, still received blame.

1a. The Obama administration is seen as weak on terror? Wait who allowed 9/11 to happen? Who invaded Iraq in response to 9/11? Who let Osama bin Laden go and who captured him?

You're right. Maybe we should invade another ME country that has nothing to do with terrorism to "prove" that we're hard on terrorism!

Let's admit, Obama could eliminate terrorism and find a cure for cancer and republicans would still complain.

2. The FBI report states that between 10-30 emails considered important were lost. None of them are suspected of being associated to any perceived crime or controversy. So if that's concerning to you you must really be up in arms over the millions lost under Bush.

 

[Jamezz]

FIGHT!!!

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I don't get why you think republicans hate wealth redistribution. They've been redistributing wealth from the poor and middle class to the top since 1980 and I haven't heard a single repub complain.

Why is redistribution of wealth from the wealthy to the other classes so bad yet you make hardly a peep when wealth is redistributed from the poor and middle class to the wealthy?

Lol

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

1. Again, what advantage would this have given to them? The Obama administration, not the republican controlled Congress with cut their funding, still received blame.

1a. The Obama administration is seen as weak on terror? Wait who allowed 9/11 to happen? Who invaded Iraq in response to 9/11? Who let Osama bin Laden go and who captured him?

You're right. Maybe we should invade another ME country that has nothing to do with terrorism to "prove" that we're hard on terrorism!

Let's admit, Obama could eliminate terrorism and find a cure for cancer and republicans would still complain.

2. The FBI report states that between 10-30 emails considered important were lost. None of them are suspected of being associated to any perceived crime or controversy. So if that's concerning to you you must really be up in arms over the millions lost under Bush.

Someone was able to figure out how much relevant information was in those deleted emails? Wow, are they psychic? Regarding bush, I don't know the details. Also, I wasn't aware that he was on the ballot again. If he is you can rest comfortably knowing that I won't be voting for him.

 

[moevillini]

ok, so let's let her get elected, then later she can be impeached. May as well follow in the footsteps...





Though it wouldn't be nearly as good of a distraction as Bill's impeachment!
Unless maybe some steamy e-mails turned up, and maybe a blue dress hidden in a closet.

 

[The Thriller]

For those who still think that the Benghazi committee was created to "get to the bottom" of the "controversy" former potential speaker of the house said:

Rep. McCarthy (R-CA) stunningly admitted to Sean Hannity on Fox News that the real point of the House Benghazi investigation is to harm Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

McCarthy gave Hannity an example of how he is going to lead the House And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known that any of that had happened had we not fought to make that happen.”

If he was really concerned for those families, why did he brag about hurting Clinton politically? I thought this was supposed to be about the families and not about politics?

https://www.politicususa.com/2015/0...arthy-admits-benghazi-investigation-sham.html

 

[The Thriller]

Someone was able to figure out how much relevant information was in those deleted emails? Wow, are they psychic? Regarding bush, I don't know the details. Also, I wasn't aware that he was on the ballot again. If he is you can rest comfortably knowing that I won't be voting for him.

I bet she planned Benghazi in those emails.

 

[The Thriller]

Lol

Waving the white flag already?

Remember, you were the one so upset over redistri of wealth.

 

[The Thriller]

FIGHT!!!

That's your come back?

 

[The Thriller]

For one, I could care less about the Republican party, I look more for the candidates as individuals. And I think that Bush has been one of the worst presidents in US history. Happy? Are YOU ever going to look into the mirror?

Clinton has been investigated. The least we can do is treat bush with the same scrutiny. Don't you think? Why shouldn't his email controversy be investigated?

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

For those who still think that the Benghazi committee was created to "get to the bottom" of the "controversy" former potential speaker of the house said:



If he was really concerned for those families, why did he brag about hurting Clinton politically? I thought this was supposed to be about the families and not about politics?

https://www.politicususa.com/2015/0...arthy-admits-benghazi-investigation-sham.html

The former potential speaker of the house (I must admit that's a position I've never heard of before) wanted to prevent Hillary from becoming president by revealing her established pattern of lying and corruption? What a meanie!