Not voting for any candidate who still maintains a devotion to an imaginary friend. Doesn't matter the name of the imaginary friend, doesn't matter the conviction and fervency in which they promulgate his or her existence, doesn't matter the emotional appeals or illogical utterances, I will not vote for someone I deem incapable of maintaining logical thought through every claim they purport.
generic-user-1 said:
the clinton foundation is a scam, they dont do others then themself good. they just spent a mini fraction of the money on heling people, the most is for other expenses. |
And that is according to who now? Carly Fiorina? Last time one of the watchdog groups checked, they spent 89% of their money on charity. However, people have attacked it because they only donate 6% to outside charities (trying to make the claim that they only spend that much on charity, twisting facts)... Why a charity needs to donate to other charities is beyond me, but again, this is one of those politicized, twisted stories that gets thrown around...
generic-user-1 said:
the clinton foundation is a scam, they dont do others then themself good. they just spent a mini fraction of the money on heling people, the most is for other expenses. |
If you're going to make a claim like this at least have some evidence to back it up.
SocialistSlayer said:
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wiped her private email server clean and did not turn over a single new email to the House Select Benghazi Committee after it subpoenaed Clinton’s private emails, according to
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S
, who chairs the Committee.Gowdy said he learned on Friday that Clinton “unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails from her personal server.”
“While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department,”
Gowdy, saying that Clinton should not be able to essentially grade her own papers, had also requested that Clinton turn over her server to a third-party arbiter, but Clinton refused. Gowdy has said that Congress may take legal action to get Clinton’s server, and he said that he and the House leadership are considering the “next steps” in the matter.
“After seeking and receiving a two week extension from the Committee, Secretary Clinton failed to provide a single new document to the subpoena issued by the Committee and refused to provide her private server to the Inspector General for the State Department or any other independent arbiter for analysis,” Gowdy said. “In light of the Secretary’s unprecedented email arrangement with herself and her decision nearly two years after she left office to permanently delete all emails… we will work with the leadership of the House of Representatives as the Committee considers next steps.”
Gowdy has previously said that there were “huge gaps” in the emails the Committee has received from Clinton, who admitted that she deleted more than 30,000 emails that she and her team deemed to be “personal” and not “work-related.”
“There are gaps of months and months and months. And if you think to that iconic picture of her on a C-17 flying to Libya, she has sunglasses on and she has her handheld device in her hand, we have no e-mails from that day. In fact, we have no e-mails from that trip,” Gowdy said in a recent appearance on CBS’s Face the Nation. “So, it’s strange credibility to believe that if you’re on your way to Libya to discuss Libyan policy that there’s not a single document that has been turned over to Congress. So, there are huge gaps. And with respect to the president, it’s not up to Secretary Clinton to decide what is a public record and what’s not.”
and as for the emails beign "saved on the other end"
In a letter provided to the committee, Kendall said Clinton would not be turning over the server to a third-party for review and that the emails no longer exist on the private server located in her New York home.
“There is no basis to support the proposed third-party review of the server that hosted the hdr22@clintonemail.com account,” Kendall wrote. “To avoid prolonging a discussion that would be academic, I have confirmed with the secretary’s IT support that no emails…..for the time period January 21, 2009 through February 1, 2013 reside on the server or on any back-up systems associated with the server.”
|
You know, I dont know why I am the one defending clinton here. Isnt there some liberal or democrat in this thread that wants to do this?
Like I said, she did not delete them after she was subpoenaed, she turned over her records when they asked her and then deleted her emails as she no longer needed them. I very much believe that there wasnt anything incriminating there as I believe clinton is far too smart to be stupid enough to use email for that.
Also, you quote me a story with a bunch of quotes from one of the most partisan figures in washington. A lot of which is just plain wrong or misleading. I like how he calls her actions unprecedented (even though they aren't, collin powell used a private server and never even turned over a single email from it), the law that requires government officials to use government emails didnt happen until 2014, two years after clinton stepped down. Before that there was just a vague regulatiin requiring government officials to hold on to all correspondance, which she did.
Bernie Sanders is the only person on that list I would want to win and he likely will not. Those other three are goons and would make a terrible president.
gergroy said:
|
last time a watchdog group talked about it they clearly said slushfund. and another watchdog has them on the watch list.
| BVick said: I'm more of a Rand Paul guy myself. More individual rights and less fed government in my life. What could be better than that? |
I like Rand Paul's ideology but he sort of seems like a copy of his father, Ron Paul, and sort of just riding the popularity / support that Ron had (unfortunately Ron was totally blocked off by the media). the issue though, as much as I like Rand's ideology, is that he lacks the charisma and likability his father has
if you want to succeed big in politics, especially as a Presidential candidate, people have to relate or resonate with you
but hell yeah to smaller government and more individual rights and even more state power
| asqarkabab said: I hope a democrat wins I dont like the republicans specially the bush family I hope the warmongerer whelp bush doesnt win the presidential elections |
'warmongerer'? you realize that the American public as well as Congress pushed for the Iraq war as well? what do you think happens after a terrorist attack that takes like 1000 lives in one of the biggest cities in America? outrage and people wanted action
I'm not saying George W. Bush isn't partially responsible but it's not as if he singularly made any decisions to go into Iraq. in the end make no mistake it was for a good PURPOSE. I'm not saying it ended up going well but I think George is obviously a fairly good person who just may not be the smartest in some of his decision making
all I know is that lately with world politics the USA seems bizarrely passive and that there should be a happy medium. at the same time the USA can be vocal and active without declaring war left and right. I will mention that despite a supposedly 'Democratic' Obama in office the military continues to be grown to gigantic proportions and when we do have healthcare or social reforms that are supposed to 'help' citizens they are forced and the people aren't even given a choice. how is that good?
in the end Jeb Bush doesn't have the likability factor. similar to Obama Clinton will win simply because there are many people in the States who would find it interesting to have a female President
I think she would do a decent job anyway simply because she has her husband there to advise her. beyond Clinton I'm not sure who would be any good. someone like Rand Paul or another reasonable third party will never get media and financial backing, and someone like Trump is just too extreme and will not get the backing of his party or the general public
unless someone else magically steps up into the race Clinton will probably win by a landslide
generic-user-1 said:
last time a watchdog group talked about it they clearly said slushfund. and another watchdog has them on the watch list. |
generic-user-1 said:
yeah, i mean who are you talking about? its hard to say who is the crazy right wing and who is the qualified candidate... jeb bush said he would have started an illegal war that leaded to the rise of isis like his brother(crazy george).
the only good candidate is rand paul, he has values and balls, but well he is crazy like his dead, and desperate to win.
|
Bush, Rubio and Kasich are all good candidates imo. if we're talking simple qualifications then candidates like Perry, Kasich, Walker and Jindal are good candidates as well. you may not agree with their positions but they're giving the Republican party some good options.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
