Form your own conclusions. Frank "The FBI determined she was extremely careless, but not criminal in her handling of confidential and classified emails. They said it was not her intent to break the law and put the entire nation in grave danger. Be sure to use that defense the next time you get pulled over in Hog Jaw, Arkansas for running that red light. Let me know how that turns out for you." http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016...cmp=ob_article_sidebar_video&intcmp=obnetwork
There is only one being I knew who is beyond and above any law of man, and I'm very sure its not Hillary Clinton.
The Clintons have so far eluded jail for all their numerous offenses. I'm quite sure they feel above the law.
I think many are afraid to speak the truth about the Clintons. There have been a lot of dead bodies left in their wake, and it seems those with knowledge are either complicit, or afraid of ending up that way. I have a few friends who would vote for her. I'm always dumbfounded by the number of people who actually believe Killary represents women, and we've already seen how loyal she is to her 'friends' like Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.
I feel so much better reading others that see the truth about Hillary. I want to say that I am still hopeful that our Nation will get a reprieve, another chance with someone else besides the "same types" of con-artists. I heard lastnight (another opinion naturally) that it really looks like Newt Gingrich will be running with Trump. I have been watching Newt, and I do think the best thing about him is that he tells the truth, especially to Trump. I think he will rein Trump in, and help make him an excellent president. I don't cringe at the idea of Newt being next in line either. I mean if something were to happen to Trump. I saw a short clip on Hillary from within the last year, and she denies everything. It is becoming a habit for her to deny everything, when America knows that she is guilty of many things, serious crime in fact, against America. I don't understand why anyone would stand with her unless they are deaf, dumb, or just as crooked as she is, but I know there must be a reason for God to allow all this to go on. I am still sickened at the fact the Clintons, Obamas, and anyone like them, not only "seem" to be above the law, but are above the law. I haven't been participating much in the "political" things because it upsets me so bad. I will be glad when it's time to vote, although I fear that somehow Bill Clinton may still end up as our first "lady". He could only be that in my eyes, because there is no way he is fit to be called "1st man".
Sorry, don't feel the same way. I believe in the FBI and their Director. He says this, I believe him! But, as the old saying goes, "to each their own". Sure hope she is the next President. Say what you want to me, but as I've already stated in another Thread...........we don't have to agree with each other in this forum, but do have to respect each others feelings.
That's two of us, @Ike Willis ... even if Benghazi and totally breaching national security wouldn't be issues, there's that pesky issue about the body count mounting. I have trouble grasping the justification mindset of her supporters. "Woman pres would be good" or "I don't like Trump" are just not good enough. A woman pres would be lovely, but... well golly, people need to do a little background research.
I don't care for Hillary but at least she's a known evil. Truth is I think she will win, I don't see Trump getting enough votes. He's such a loose canon. Also, you all know what a skeptic I am and ever since I found out that Trump tends to believe in conspiracy theories it worries me. When he came to Fresno he said there was no drought in CA. Here's what he said. Donald Trump told an audience in Fresno that “there is no drought” in California. According to Trump, the state has plenty of water but it’s being held hostage by environmentalists in government. The idea that the government is engineering the drought was popularized by professional conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones. California, in fact, is facing a severe drought of historic proportions that covers nearly 95% of the state. I live here and there is a drought. Every year it's rained less and less, we don't have the run off in the spring from the mountains and we have to cut back on water use, which is lost revenue for the city of Fresno, so making up a drought would make no sense. I can also just see the riots if Trumps elected, he's hated by too many. No matter how you look at it Neither one is a good choice. I voted Trump in the primary and I really don't know what to do in November.
I hope people don't start voting with a "known evil" vote... how shameful! I'm thinking that the opposite of known evil is not necessarily "unknown" evil if there's no proof of evil. (arrogance, sure, but I might have a ton of them myself ) I can deal with arrogance if we start getting America back.
It's more than arrogance, Mari. His arrogance doesn't bother me, although I prefer someone that's not so brash and in your face. The fact that he's not a politician so we don't really know what he stands for is scary. Why would he say there is no drought in CA? He says these things that he has no proof of just to get attention, wether it's positive or negative. He sees that has worked for him, so that's what he's doing. I have no idea what he will do in office as President. I won't elaborate anymore because this is a Hillary post and not the trump post. To me it's a lose/lose situation. Worst election ever.
There are two ways in which a drought might be determined. It is considered to be a drought when there is a prolonged deficit in the water supply. When a drought is proclaimed, most people assume that there has been far less than the normal amount of precipitation, leaving people without enough water to survive. However, it is also considered to be a drought when the water supply is unable to meet the demand. If so many people move into an area that the normal amount of rainfall is unable to meet the increased demand, it is also considered to be a drought. I lived in California for twelve years and it rarely rained. When it did rain, it rained for two weeks straight, but we seldom had rain, but no one was calling it a drought at that time. When I moved to the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, it rained often. The Rio Grande Valley was on the Gulf of Mexico, and we had bodies of water everywhere, known as resacas, but most of this water was contaminated with dangerous amoebas and was not potable. Despite the fact that we had water everywhere and we rarely had a week without rain, the Rio Grande Valley was constantly in a drought. It didn't make sense to me until I attended a one-week course on disasters, related to my position in EMS, that I learned that the Valley was in a drought because the influx of people moving across the border had inflated the population of the area so that the normal amount of rainfall could no longer meet the needs of the population. Yet people were being led to believe that global warming was the cause. I don't know what the case is in California because I haven't lived there in more than thirty years, and didn't pay much attention to such things when I was living there, but I do know that it's not as simple as it seems. Could it be that there are simply too many people in California?
@Chrissy Page Whoa! "The fact that he's not a politician so we don't really know what he stands for is scary." That is to say that we DO really know what a person stands for, if that person is a Politician?? Frank
I get what you're saying, Chrissy... but I have to say that I've known in-your-face brash people and I've known the opposite... which would be the back stabbers. I'd choose to spend time with the in-my-facer every time.... I know when they're coming and I probably even know what they're going to do. I'm thinking that someone who's "not a politician" is exactly what's needed. The back stabbers on the other hand... just can't trust them because there are sneak attacks. Worst election ever is absolutely right!