I am saying i don t thnk you actually beleive what you are saying-  Kind of like a used car salesman selling a car they know is burnt-  It just sounds like the obligatory throw away lines/talking points

using the "racist" lable as a means to disparage a candidate you do not support is one of the 1st signals to me that that person really has no idea and they are just following somoeon else lead-  be your own person -  don t go straight to th eHC campagn talking points - come up w something that might be true, helpful acurate???  

Now as far as the Clinton Foundation is concerned, yes, I believe that potentially making massive sums of money by making personally favorable decisions in foreign policy is significantly more of a threat than people donating to a charitable organization. The Clintons don't make money fromt he Clinton Foundation (including salary http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-09-16/the-clinton-foundation-vs-the-trump-foundation ). Further, the figure you pulled up (85 people) first of all doesn't say anything about whether the access was granted due to donations, and even if it was, that was 87 people out of thousands (AP decided to skew that figure as much as they could) and if you actually read the details of what was found, there was absolutely nothing untoward about any of those meetings. When the biggest hit you can find on the foundation is that she met with a Nobel Peace Prize winner and spoke to someone who was involved with AIDS charity while running an AIDS charity, you ain't got shit.

But yeah, I can see you have no interest in any actual discussion so I think this discussion has run its course.

Okay, you're done. Hillary Clinton is awful and you're just awful at proving it, especially when it's just simply too easy. 

Hillary Clinton compromised national security. She lied on numerous occasions about it. Then got caught. When she was caught, she claimed not ignorance, but incompetence. The person that many want to be our nation's most powerful figure is so mind-blowingly awful at what she does that she couldn't even pay attention for a 15 minute briefing on how classified information is labeled.

So now we're stuck with two potential characters in Hillary; the one that she wants us to believe is an incompetent fool unfit to run a country, and the one that might be hosting become that facade whole planning who knows what. 

Full disclosure, I don't want Trump to be president. I did at one point early in the race, but he's become increasingly hostile towards people that he doesn't need to be hostile towards. He's opened his mouth and awful, awful things have come out. But you know what? 

We know what kind of person he is. He's not a wildcard, he's just a bad one. 

Hillary, on the other hand, is a card equally bad (but in a different way)... Unless she's actually a maniac. So I just don't care to sit by and listen to people compare her and Trump, only to act like one is better. They're two different flavors of shit; diarrhea and green diarrhea. Stop acting like your political party chose the less shit candidate, because it didn't. 

@ bolded

How many politicians do you think are equally incompetent and have also compromised national security but just haven't been caught (at least in public)? I suspect there's a scary number of politicians who are equally as incompetent in that regard. 

In which case we need to get rid of politcians altogether! 

Fine, deny all the evidence you want but the emails are there just to show how the Clinton Foundation donors colluded with the Secretary of State at that time ...