Goose wrote:

Hey, CS, what relevance do emails have to topic of the thread?

He is hoping (as are ALL the R-tribe talking heads) that SOMETHING will come out of it. As of this juncture NO emails sent or received were classified secret at the time they were sent. As of now it is a non-issue. But they can keep hoping. 

Perhaps throw in another waste of time Benghazi hearing. 

At least it avoids talking about what we need done like building a wall and having Mexico pay for it ! 


 

Common Sense wrote:

Brady Bunch wrote:

Rongone wrote:

 Something has to change and, from my perspective, neither Drumpf nor Clinton have the ability to compromise, the independence of original thought, the intelligence, nor the intestinal fortitude to initiate those needed changes.

Can't agree more.

This is why I will not vote for either of them in November.  Thanks to Tennyson for the information on Gary Johnson.  I researched his positions and if he is on the ballot in November, he will receive my vote.

Brady
I don't think this is the year for a protest vote or non-vote. Do you want 4 more years of Obama polices?
I don't think you do but that is what will happen with a protest vote. Johnson will never be president.
Actually the effect of this election will be much longer with Supreme court nominee's that will be submitted.
Just throwing this out for your consideration. It's 6 months till the election lots can change by then.
 

I don't consider voting for the best candidate a protest vote.  Based on Trump's actions, unrealistic policies and general conduct, I can't vote for him.

I don't want Hillary elected either, but in my opinion neither of them are suited to be President.  They will govern in different ways, but both will be bad.

I don't see myself changing my mind, unless Trump morphs into a thoughtful, articulate candidate.  

Brady Bunch wrote:

tennyson wrote:

Goose wrote:

Hey, CS, what relevance do emails have to topic of the thread?

He is hoping (as are ALL the R-tribe talking heads) that SOMETHING will come out of it. As of this juncture NO emails sent or received were classified secret at the time they were sent. As of now it is a non-issue. But they can keep hoping. 

Perhaps throw in another waste of time Benghazi hearing. 

At least it avoids talking about what we need done like building a wall and having Mexico pay for it ! 


 

As of now this be a non-issue in regards to criminal conduct, but this is not a non-issue in my opinion.

She knew exactly what she was doing and setup this server on purpose to circumvent disclosure and RTKL's.  Her whole intent was to keep private what should have been public record.  This goes to the character of Hillary and is just one example in a long list of things that have been highly questionable (at the least) judgment decisions.

 

Well, at least one of the major political parties presidential candidates has been told by a judge that they must testify in court about perpetrating fraud on the general public:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/president-elect-or-not-trump-is-going-to-trial-003511101.html?ref=gs

Goose,

I was responding to Tennyson's comments that the email server scandal was a non-issue.  Since the issue was brought and being discussed, I felt like adding my opinion on Tennyson's statement.

My comment was not in response to your statement about the relevance of that subject in this thread.

tennyson wrote:

When have you EVER heard in any Presidential primary such vulgar and/or demeaning language coming out of the leader of a party. I mean "Lynin Ted", "Little Rubio", Rand Paul "the spoiled brat", Rick Perry ""He put on glasses so people will think he’s smart", and on Carly Fiorina "Look at that face!" "Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?!."

I could go on and on, but that is enough, 

Reagan must be rolling over in his grave about the current demeanor amongst GOP contenders. 

The sadder thing is --- people seem to LIKE this demeaning style. 

 

Every political candidate does their best to paint their opponent in the most negative light possible. The George W. Bush campaign spread rumors about John McCain having fathered a (gasp) black child back in 2000. 

Richard Nixon tried to convince the American people that a John F. Kennedy presidency would mean the Pope would have more of a say in policy than the people.

John Quincy Adams accused Andrew Jackson's mom of being a prostitute.

I suppose by those standards, "Lyin' Ted" is pretty lame.

I think with the over-saturation of media, it's actually pretty hard to put some blatantly false information about a candidate out there. I don't think there are a whole lot of media types who are big fans of Ted Cruz, but everyone called bullsh!t on Trump when he made the whole, "Ted Cruz's father was part of the Kennedy assasination" conspiracy theory.

Anyway, as Jeb liked to say, "politics ain't bean bag" (whatever that means). Our history is filled with politicians making outrageous claims in an effort to win an election.