By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Rpruett on 31 August 2015
Edit Thread
PDF said:
Rpruett said:

What ideals are those exactly, changing her mind and lying to say whatever is applicable and works at the time?  If her last name were Jones instead of Clinton,  her resume would be vapor.  Two for the price of one, are we electing Hilary or are we re-electing Bill Clinton?  Why not elect a Bush then hell, that's like three for the price of one.

A presidential candidate being investigated by the FBI for distinctly breaking the law (a crime we've watched several others get crucified and lose their career over) and having a completely isolated server outside of anybodies jurisdiction?  That doesn't concern you, that your selection for President has no regard for the laws that she would gladly lock you away with for life for breaking?    Sorry but that's a stupid way to look at things.

As for Reagan -- I wasn't aware he was running.  He is in no way relevant to this discussion, but a classic strawman argument never hurt anybody.  By the time Contra happened it was already well into a successful presidency and the ultimate intentions of Contra were relatively pure.

Maybe you are confused on the difference between Marriage and siblings/father and son.  Are you from Alabama???

Whatever her last name does not change the fact that she was a Senator, Secretary of State and yes did see first hand what it was like to be President through her husband an was a very politcally engaged first lady.

The fact that you don't know the difference between Hillary FBI investigation and somone like General Patraeus shows you are not qualified to really talk about it. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/08/30/clinton-controversy-no-comparison-petraeus-column/71421242/

If you are so concerned about the private servers does that disqualify Jeb, Walker, Perry, and Jindall who did the same thing?

Maybe you're confusing blood relatives with married relatives.   Whatever her last name,  is precisely by the means in which she became 'Senator'  and subsequently 'Secretary of State' due to her name.   

Did you read the article you linked?  Essentially -- the entire premise is Clinton isn't guilty because she didn't 'knowingly do something unlawful'.     "Petraeus knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct, and that was the basis of his criminal liability."    Running under the assumption that Clinton didn't knowingly engage in unlawful conduct is a weak argument at best.

I guess we can conveniently leave out of your little synapsis that it's believed that Clinton tried to 'wipe her email server'.   Let me ask you,  how often in the digital age do you 'wipe' or 'destroy' things unless you have some reason for them to not be seen?  Especially, for someone who claims to be so ignorant to the process.   The reaction is priceless and it speaks a thousand words .   

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b01lEFXngTs

Absolutely -- If you're working outside the boundaries of the law while under a government seat doesn't that pretty consistently speak to your character?   Does that not make them every bit as 'unfit' to be President as people who claim Donald Trump is?   Every bit as 'non' Presidential?  

 

Again if her name wasn't Clinton -- She wouldn't be a Senator, she wouldn't be Secretary of State, she wouldn't be qualified.   That's beside the point that she's just a mediocre candidate across the board.