Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They are tired of all the double talk and PC garbage.
Can you answer the following questions:
1. Do you believe that all people deserve to be treated with basic decency and respect? If so, why? If not, why?
2. Do you believe that there are any groups of people who face active discrimination in 2016? If so, which ones? If not, why?
3. Do you believe that discrimination of any kind can be justified? If so, which kind, and for what group of people?
4. How do you define being PC?
5. Is being honest more or less important than being tactful or compassionate?
6. Have you ever faced discrimination personally? If so, in what way? Did you find it to be honest or insulting?
No idea as I don't pay a damn bit of attention to their "facts" I trust NOTHING the media tells me...and 99.9% I am right to do so.
So where do you get your information from about Hillary/Trump then if you follow no media of any kind? How do you actually know what their positions are? How do you know if, say, Hillary is corrupt, if you pay no attention to anything? Wouldn't that mean you are just making it up?
Let's be real here- you follow lots of media. You are just selective in what you are willing to believe.
If any of the investigations had show that she had engaged in illegal activities, I would have no choice but to believe that. And I would not support her for president, even as a liberal. I could never vote for Trump, as I see him as antithetical to both American and liberal values, so I would have to vote 3rd party or not at all- or for whomever the Democrats replaced her with if possible.
So no, you are wrong. Clinton isn't above the law IMO, but there needs to be more than just conspiracy theories and endless investigations with nothing to show for it. It makes Republicans look sad and desperate that they keep repeating all these claims and yet seem incapable of proving anything.
Tell me why I should assume Clinton is as corrupt as you say even though the dozens of investigations- by Republicans no less- have been unable to show that that is true? What proof is there beyond the claims?
Where am I being illogical?
You could do something that no one has done to date. Pick up a copy of "Clinton Cash" and go to each footnoted source and start refuting them. I am still waiting for someone to do that. Just think of the hero status you would gain among your liberal friends if you were the first to accomplish that.
If any of the investigations had show that she had engaged in illegal activities, I would have no choice but to believe that. And I would not support her for president, even as a liberal. I could never vote for Trump, as I see him as antithetical to both American and liberal values, so I would have to vote 3rd party or not at all- or for whomever the Democrats replaced her with if possible.
So no, you are wrong. Clinton isn't above the law IMO, but there needs to be more than just conspiracy theories and endless investigations with nothing to show for it. It makes Republicans look sad and desperate that they keep repeating all these claims and yet seem incapable of proving anything.
Tell me why I should assume Clinton is as corrupt as you say even though the dozens of investigations- by Republicans no less- have been unable to show that that is true? What proof is there beyond the claims?
Where am I being illogical?
You seem to be a reasonable person, so I will answer you.
"If any of the investigations had show that she had engaged in illegal activities, I would have no choice but to believe that."
Where have you been these past MONTHS.
There are very explicit LAWS pertaining on how to handle classified material.
There has been MULTIPLE postings of the laws.
The FBI Director laid out in clear terms the wrongs she commuted then refused to charge her.
He through in the word "intent" which is NOWHERE in the laws.
Imagine being stopped by a cop and says is radar showed you doing7 0 in a 55 zone.
Do you think you would get very far before a judges if you decide to to to court with Your Honor, I did NOT INTEND to go that fast?
What do you think the judge would say to you?
Then there is "ignorance of law is NO excuse".
Keep in mind as a Senator serving on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee she HAD instructions on the handling of classified material.
Upon becoming the Sec. of State she RECEIVED EXTENSIVE ADDITIONAL instructions on how to handle classified material.
And this is ONLY 1 of many.
Read this carefully: "Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
https://asweetdoseofreality.com/2016...lary-off-hook/
Quote: Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true? Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent. Gowdy: It was not true? Comey: That’s what I said. Gowdy: OK. Well, I’m looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true? Comey: That’s not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents. Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said “I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material.†That is true? Comey: There was classified information emailed. Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true? Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State. Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true? Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned. Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account. Comey: That’s a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there’s no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system. Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually? Comey: No.
After reading these 2 can you HONESTLY say "If any of the investigations had show that she had engaged in illegal activities, I would have no choice but to believe that."
For people who have held or still hold, Top Secret Clearances and what we constantly went through in getting and keeping those Clearances with the CONSTANT refresher courses we had to take to REMIND us of the laws, it is INCONCEIVABLE that she was NOT charged with crimes.
Do the research, and it's clear that the democrats have moved so far left, that they are not the same party it was during the Kennedy Era. I well remember that, having spent countless hours working on behalf of the Kennedy campaign and my once loved democrat party.
Here are some photos during a rally in San Fran in 2004. As you can see, this move to the far left has been happening for some time.
Also, I found my old blog that I started in 2003 and ran for 10 years...it was very political. A LOT of the links to stories have been wiped clean, you can't even find them on the wayback machine, but the wonderful thing about blogs, (back then when everyone knew a blog was not a personal online journal), was that we quoted the stories...often times, the entire story if we were, as they called it back then, "fisking" it...so enough information is left over regardless of the scrubbing done by the dishonest media, and what I found interesting is that everything Kerry was slated to do...Obama ended up doing.
This, of course confirms it in my mind that it's not who is the person elected from the left, what happens will happen no matter what because the person truly IS just a piece being used to get people to vote the left in. With Obama, it was "the first black president", with Hillary, it's supposed to be the "first female president" but it's not going over as well as they thought so they screwed over Bernie supporters, and will probably rig the election as well.
There's been enough evidence revealed, thanks to wikileaks, that it's a very real possibility. That's why the left HATES Assange right now...despite how much they loved him when he was bashing away at Bush back then. Oh, and lefties, you can bet your backside that it's very personal with Assange right now considering Hillary has a hand in him still not being free. Don't expect for a second that these reveals are going to stop.
1. Do you believe that all people deserve to be treated with basic decency and respect? If so, why? If not, why?
2. Do you believe that there are any groups of people who face active discrimination in 2016? If so, which ones? If not, why?
3. Do you believe that discrimination of any kind can be justified? If so, which kind, and for what group of people?
4. How do you define being PC?
5. Is being honest more or less important than being tactful or compassionate?
6. Have you ever faced discrimination personally? If so, in what way? Did you find it to be honest or insulting?
Let's start with those.
1. If you (not you personally) act decently, they should be treated decently.
2. ALL people are discriminated against.
3. No, I believe in EQUAL TREATMENT FOR ALL.
4. IMO, ridiculous things that some "feel" offends them.
It Started with a list some liberal newspaper posted a list of "unacceptable " word or terms like, "sight challenged" instead of "bind", "sanitary engineer" instead of "garbage man", "Islamic terrorists", etc.
Then it grew. "Merry Christmas" is no longer accepted in many places.
The WORSE is the double standard. The "N' word ( can't even type the word for it will be *out) but, I can type "cracker", "******" etc.
"You do not have the right to not be offended by the free speech of others....."
5. I don't see where one has anything to do with the other.
6. More times then I have time to tell.
Again, I don't see where either one has anything to do with the other.
You could do something that no one has done to date. Pick up a copy of "Clinton Cash" and go to each footnoted source and start refuting them. I am still waiting for someone to do that. Just think of the hero status you would gain among your liberal friends if you were the first to accomplish that.
Or you could answer simple questions. You base your hatred of her on things you believe to be true about her character. They're not my beliefs, they're yours. Shouldn't you be able to give an explanation for why you believe what you do?
One is an honest, yet obnoxious billionaire that "shoots from the hip" and comes across as totally insensitive and at times outright racist. A political outsider, standing ground, regardless of the foe. An outstanding leadership quality.
The other.... An egotistical, power hungry opportunist. Calculating, corrupt and rotten to the core. One capable of selling her mother's soul...just for political gain and power. A political wheeling and dealing political front.
I have always aligned myself with the political party of the latter, but this time around, for reasons I cannot fully explain or comprehend, I am leaning toward supporting the former.
It simply comes down to the best of the worse.
Thank you for sharing your opinion with us.
Here is mine:
Donald Trump is more than merely "obnoxious." He is NOT "honest" ... that is a laugh! Donald Trump is a clown, a buffoon, a Kardashian-like caricature of real person. He is corrupt, dishonest, a tax-evader, a bigot, a racist, a loud-mouth and a bully.
Donald Trump won't release his tax information because he has something to hide.
Donald Trump has no elected office experience, sense of diplomacy or decorum, poise, eloquence, or anything remotely "presidential."
Not my first choice, but I'm voting for Hillary.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Donald Trump is a clown, a buffoon, a Kardashian-like caricature of real person. He is corrupt, dishonest, a tax-evader, a bigot, a racist, a loud-mouth and a bully.
