Hillary escaped justice. Those are the facts we face. Now what are we gonna do?

[hadit]

She won't escape justice if she is denied the White House.

And if you guys hadn't nominated the Nazi Orange Hairpiece, you'd have a chance of denying her.

I wouldn't vote for a Nazi or for a hairpiece. Who are you talking about? No, Hillary is her own worst enemy at this point because she's a terrible candidate with tremendous baggage. She's becoming Nixonian with her secretiveness, paranoia, and destruction of evidence. It would be poetic justice if the lawyer who worked so hard to deny Nixon his rightful defense would end up mirroring his presidential destruction by resigning in disgrace. I would not feel bad if such a thing happened.

 

[Czernobog]

We know that with hilly we would get an even more selfish and egotistical obama. Although one that doesn't hate the country as much as he does. She makes up for it with contempt.

When she loses will democrats finally take it to the next level civil war or settle down and take it?

That is so adorable. The entire point of this thread is that the best you've got is "E-MAAAAAAAILS!!!!!!" And yet, you talk as if you seriously think that you will beat her with the sociopath.

Never mind the fact that he is losing to her in every rational poll being taken, and that, while everyone hates Hillary (as evidenced by her negative approvals), they like Ass Cancer more than Trump (as evidenced by his even worse negative approvals).

But, you still talk as if he will beat her. That's precious.

 

[hadit]

We know that with hilly we would get an even more selfish and egotistical obama. Although one that doesn't hate the country as much as he does. She makes up for it with contempt.

When she loses will democrats finally take it to the next level civil war or settle down and take it?

That is so adorable. The entire point of this thread is that the best you've got is "E-MAAAAAAAILS!!!!!!" And yet, you talk as if you seriously think that you will beat her with the sociopath.

Never mind the fact that he is losing to her in every rational poll being taken, and that, while everyone hates Hillary (as evidenced by her negative approvals), they like Ass Cancer more than Trump (as evidenced by his even worse negative approvals).

But, you still talk as if he will beat her. That's precious.

The real question is, do you even WANT a Hillary presidency with such high negatives? Do you really think she's going to have any kind of mandate if she just manages to get into office while, as you say, everyone hates her? As we saw with The Fragile One, getting elected is just the start. No one cares that you won after that, they care what you're going to do in office.

 

[Czernobog]

We know that with hilly we would get an even more selfish and egotistical obama. Although one that doesn't hate the country as much as he does. She makes up for it with contempt.

When she loses will democrats finally take it to the next level civil war or settle down and take it?

That is so adorable. The entire point of this thread is that the best you've got is "E-MAAAAAAAILS!!!!!!" And yet, you talk as if you seriously think that you will beat her with the sociopath.

Never mind the fact that he is losing to her in every rational poll being taken, and that, while everyone hates Hillary (as evidenced by her negative approvals), they like Ass Cancer more than Trump (as evidenced by his even worse negative approvals).

But, you still talk as if he will beat her. That's precious.

The real question is, do you even WANT a Hillary presidency with such high negatives? Do you really think she's going to have any kind of mandate if she just manages to get into office while, as you say, everyone hates her? As we saw with The Fragile One, getting elected is just the start. No one cares that you won after that, they care what you're going to do in office.

Actually, I think once HIllary starts correcting many of the misconceptions out there - you, like she committed murder, she hates women, she hates men, she was the secret shooter on the grassy knoll - once she starts correcting all this misinformation that the "New" conservatives are relying on, a lot of those negatives are gonna turn around.

Besides, since Trump's are even worse, if that question were true for Hillary, how much more so is it true for Trump?

And here's the political reality. A "third party option" isn't. Historically, in the last 48 years, the best that a third party candidate did was 12%. In other words he was nothing more than a spoiler for one of the two actual candidates.

They can't get on the debate stage, most can't even get enough support to even get on all 50 ballots, and they don't have anywhere near the war chest to launch any kind of meaningful campaign.

So, while I know the mythical "third party candidate" is the really popular dissension option these days, the reality is it just isn't viable. The only thing the "third party" candidate does is pull from, usually, which ever party is performing the best. In this case it's Hillary. This is why Bernie won't consider an independent run. Because, while he may not be thrilled with Hillary, he has one primary goal - to make sure that the only way Trump ever sees the inside of the White House is as part of one of those Capitol tours.

 

[bodecea]

NOTHING

It's over. Time to stop whining about the decision & put your efforts into defeating her. Whining on the internet is NOT A SOLUTION. Put your efforts into a solution rather than a tempertantum in need of a diaper change.


And by the way I'm not a liberal. I don't support Hillary in any fashion. I am disappointed in the outcome but i am just a MATURE ADULT WHO ACTUALLY DEALS IN REALITY.




That last part was for the confused dumbfucks among us.

Last few days any indication...lots of sniveling.

 

[Lakhota]

Hillary escaped justice. Those are the facts we face. Now what are we gonna do?

Whose justice? NaziCon justice? Get a rabies shot or keep on salivating...

 

[JoeB131]

I wouldn't vote for a Nazi or for a hairpiece. Who are you talking about? No, Hillary is her own worst enemy at this point because she's a terrible candidate with tremendous baggage. She's becoming Nixonian with her secretiveness, paranoia, and destruction of evidence. It would be poetic justice if the lawyer who worked so hard to deny Nixon his rightful defense would end up mirroring his presidential destruction by resigning in disgrace. I would not feel bad if such a thing happened.

Nor would I. But you guys have been trying for 25 years to "Get" the Clintons, and keep coming up short.

I suspect WHEN she beats the Nazi Orange Hairpiece, you guys will keep coming up with these nothingburger scandals.

 

[hadit]

We know that with hilly we would get an even more selfish and egotistical obama. Although one that doesn't hate the country as much as he does. She makes up for it with contempt.

When she loses will democrats finally take it to the next level civil war or settle down and take it?

That is so adorable. The entire point of this thread is that the best you've got is "E-MAAAAAAAILS!!!!!!" And yet, you talk as if you seriously think that you will beat her with the sociopath.

Never mind the fact that he is losing to her in every rational poll being taken, and that, while everyone hates Hillary (as evidenced by her negative approvals), they like Ass Cancer more than Trump (as evidenced by his even worse negative approvals).

But, you still talk as if he will beat her. That's precious.

The real question is, do you even WANT a Hillary presidency with such high negatives? Do you really think she's going to have any kind of mandate if she just manages to get into office while, as you say, everyone hates her? As we saw with The Fragile One, getting elected is just the start. No one cares that you won after that, they care what you're going to do in office.

Actually, I think once HIllary starts correcting many of the misconceptions out there - you, like she committed murder, she hates women, she hates men, she was the secret shooter on the grassy knoll - once she starts correcting all this misinformation that the "New" conservatives are relying on, a lot of those negatives are gonna turn around.

Besides, since Trump's are even worse, if that question were true for Hillary, how much more so is it true for Trump?

And here's the political reality. A "third party option" isn't. Historically, in the last 48 years, the best that a third party candidate did was 12%. In other words he was nothing more than a spoiler for one of the two actual candidates.

They can't get on the debate stage, most can't even get enough support to even get on all 50 ballots, and they don't have anywhere near the war chest to launch any kind of meaningful campaign.

So, while I know the mythical "third party candidate" is the really popular dissension option these days, the reality is it just isn't viable. The only thing the "third party" candidate does is pull from, usually, which ever party is performing the best. In this case it's Hillary. This is why Bernie won't consider an independent run. Because, while he may not be thrilled with Hillary, he has one primary goal - to make sure that the only way Trump ever sees the inside of the White House is as part of one of those Capitol tours.

That doesn't address what I said.

 

[hadit]

I wouldn't vote for a Nazi or for a hairpiece. Who are you talking about? No, Hillary is her own worst enemy at this point because she's a terrible candidate with tremendous baggage. She's becoming Nixonian with her secretiveness, paranoia, and destruction of evidence. It would be poetic justice if the lawyer who worked so hard to deny Nixon his rightful defense would end up mirroring his presidential destruction by resigning in disgrace. I would not feel bad if such a thing happened.

Nor would I. But you guys have been trying for 25 years to "Get" the Clintons, and keep coming up short.

I suspect WHEN she beats the Nazi Orange Hairpiece, you guys will keep coming up with these nothingburger scandals.

Actually, one of the Clintons was impeached, only the second president ever to be. That was cool.

And who the heck is the "Nazi Orange Hairpiece"? She sounds scary.

 

[Czernobog]

We know that with hilly we would get an even more selfish and egotistical obama. Although one that doesn't hate the country as much as he does. She makes up for it with contempt.

When she loses will democrats finally take it to the next level civil war or settle down and take it?

That is so adorable. The entire point of this thread is that the best you've got is "E-MAAAAAAAILS!!!!!!" And yet, you talk as if you seriously think that you will beat her with the sociopath.

Never mind the fact that he is losing to her in every rational poll being taken, and that, while everyone hates Hillary (as evidenced by her negative approvals), they like Ass Cancer more than Trump (as evidenced by his even worse negative approvals).

But, you still talk as if he will beat her. That's precious.

The real question is, do you even WANT a Hillary presidency with such high negatives? Do you really think she's going to have any kind of mandate if she just manages to get into office while, as you say, everyone hates her? As we saw with The Fragile One, getting elected is just the start. No one cares that you won after that, they care what you're going to do in office.

Actually, I think once HIllary starts correcting many of the misconceptions out there - you, like she committed murder, she hates women, she hates men, she was the secret shooter on the grassy knoll - once she starts correcting all this misinformation that the "New" conservatives are relying on, a lot of those negatives are gonna turn around.

Besides, since Trump's are even worse, if that question were true for Hillary, how much more so is it true for Trump?

And here's the political reality. A "third party option" isn't. Historically, in the last 48 years, the best that a third party candidate did was 12%. In other words he was nothing more than a spoiler for one of the two actual candidates.

They can't get on the debate stage, most can't even get enough support to even get on all 50 ballots, and they don't have anywhere near the war chest to launch any kind of meaningful campaign.

So, while I know the mythical "third party candidate" is the really popular dissension option these days, the reality is it just isn't viable. The only thing the "third party" candidate does is pull from, usually, which ever party is performing the best. In this case it's Hillary. This is why Bernie won't consider an independent run. Because, while he may not be thrilled with Hillary, he has one primary goal - to make sure that the only way Trump ever sees the inside of the White House is as part of one of those Capitol tours.

That doesn't address what I said.

Sure it does. You asked if we want to elect someone with such low likability, implying that such a condition rather disqualifies a candidate from consideration.

First, I pointed out that low likability is fixable. Second, I pointed out that the opposition is worse, which implies that, by your standards, he is equally, if not more, unqualified to be considered for the office.

So, unless you were setting up for endorsing voting for a third party, which I dealt with in my final point, then what is your alternative? Not to vote?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

I wouldn't vote for a Nazi or for a hairpiece. Who are you talking about? No, Hillary is her own worst enemy at this point because she's a terrible candidate with tremendous baggage. She's becoming Nixonian with her secretiveness, paranoia, and destruction of evidence. It would be poetic justice if the lawyer who worked so hard to deny Nixon his rightful defense would end up mirroring his presidential destruction by resigning in disgrace. I would not feel bad if such a thing happened.

Nor would I. But you guys have been trying for 25 years to "Get" the Clintons, and keep coming up short.

I suspect WHEN she beats the Nazi Orange Hairpiece, you guys will keep coming up with these nothingburger scandals.

Actually, one of the Clintons was impeached, only the second president ever to be. That was cool.

And who the heck is the "Nazi Orange Hairpiece"? She sounds scary.

I believe he is referring to the orangutan-haired, Carnival Barker Sociopath - Trump.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[BluesLegend]

Gramps this email stuff is a nothing burger imo. Investigate how politicians become multi-millionaires on a civil servant salary that's where you will find real crimes.

 

[OKTexas]

The Republicans have spent years on witch hunts that have amounted to nothing. Now they are stuck with a nominee who is too busy attacking his own party to focus on Hillary while she pounds him with millions of dollars in ads. 2016 isn't looking good for the Republican party.

Right, now she's blaming republicans because she lied under oath to congress. I just wish the bitch would stroke out and put us all out of her misery.

 

[hadit]

We know that with hilly we would get an even more selfish and egotistical obama. Although one that doesn't hate the country as much as he does. She makes up for it with contempt.

When she loses will democrats finally take it to the next level civil war or settle down and take it?

That is so adorable. The entire point of this thread is that the best you've got is "E-MAAAAAAAILS!!!!!!" And yet, you talk as if you seriously think that you will beat her with the sociopath.

Never mind the fact that he is losing to her in every rational poll being taken, and that, while everyone hates Hillary (as evidenced by her negative approvals), they like Ass Cancer more than Trump (as evidenced by his even worse negative approvals).

But, you still talk as if he will beat her. That's precious.

The real question is, do you even WANT a Hillary presidency with such high negatives? Do you really think she's going to have any kind of mandate if she just manages to get into office while, as you say, everyone hates her? As we saw with The Fragile One, getting elected is just the start. No one cares that you won after that, they care what you're going to do in office.

Actually, I think once HIllary starts correcting many of the misconceptions out there - you, like she committed murder, she hates women, she hates men, she was the secret shooter on the grassy knoll - once she starts correcting all this misinformation that the "New" conservatives are relying on, a lot of those negatives are gonna turn around.

Besides, since Trump's are even worse, if that question were true for Hillary, how much more so is it true for Trump?

And here's the political reality. A "third party option" isn't. Historically, in the last 48 years, the best that a third party candidate did was 12%. In other words he was nothing more than a spoiler for one of the two actual candidates.

They can't get on the debate stage, most can't even get enough support to even get on all 50 ballots, and they don't have anywhere near the war chest to launch any kind of meaningful campaign.

So, while I know the mythical "third party candidate" is the really popular dissension option these days, the reality is it just isn't viable. The only thing the "third party" candidate does is pull from, usually, which ever party is performing the best. In this case it's Hillary. This is why Bernie won't consider an independent run. Because, while he may not be thrilled with Hillary, he has one primary goal - to make sure that the only way Trump ever sees the inside of the White House is as part of one of those Capitol tours.

That doesn't address what I said.

Sure it does. You asked if we want to elect someone with such low likability, implying that such a condition rather disqualifies a candidate from consideration.

First, I pointed out that low likability is fixable. Second, I pointed out that the opposition is worse.

So, unless you were setting up for endorsing voting for a third party, which I dealt with in my final point, then what is your alternative? Not to vote?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I haven't decided yet how I will vote, only that I will not vote for Hillary. I really don't think her likability is fixable. She's had decades to improve it, and it's only gotten worse. In fact, it seems that the more exposure she gets, the less likable she is.

 

[Czernobog]

That is so adorable. The entire point of this thread is that the best you've got is "E-MAAAAAAAILS!!!!!!" And yet, you talk as if you seriously think that you will beat her with the sociopath.

Never mind the fact that he is losing to her in every rational poll being taken, and that, while everyone hates Hillary (as evidenced by her negative approvals), they like Ass Cancer more than Trump (as evidenced by his even worse negative approvals).

But, you still talk as if he will beat her. That's precious.

The real question is, do you even WANT a Hillary presidency with such high negatives? Do you really think she's going to have any kind of mandate if she just manages to get into office while, as you say, everyone hates her? As we saw with The Fragile One, getting elected is just the start. No one cares that you won after that, they care what you're going to do in office.

Actually, I think once HIllary starts correcting many of the misconceptions out there - you, like she committed murder, she hates women, she hates men, she was the secret shooter on the grassy knoll - once she starts correcting all this misinformation that the "New" conservatives are relying on, a lot of those negatives are gonna turn around.

Besides, since Trump's are even worse, if that question were true for Hillary, how much more so is it true for Trump?

And here's the political reality. A "third party option" isn't. Historically, in the last 48 years, the best that a third party candidate did was 12%. In other words he was nothing more than a spoiler for one of the two actual candidates.

They can't get on the debate stage, most can't even get enough support to even get on all 50 ballots, and they don't have anywhere near the war chest to launch any kind of meaningful campaign.

So, while I know the mythical "third party candidate" is the really popular dissension option these days, the reality is it just isn't viable. The only thing the "third party" candidate does is pull from, usually, which ever party is performing the best. In this case it's Hillary. This is why Bernie won't consider an independent run. Because, while he may not be thrilled with Hillary, he has one primary goal - to make sure that the only way Trump ever sees the inside of the White House is as part of one of those Capitol tours.

That doesn't address what I said.

Sure it does. You asked if we want to elect someone with such low likability, implying that such a condition rather disqualifies a candidate from consideration.

First, I pointed out that low likability is fixable. Second, I pointed out that the opposition is worse.

So, unless you were setting up for endorsing voting for a third party, which I dealt with in my final point, then what is your alternative? Not to vote?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I haven't decided yet how I will vote, only that I will not vote for Hillary. I really don't think her likability is fixable. She's had decades to improve it, and it's only gotten worse. In fact, it seems that the more exposure she gets, the less likable she is.

That's demonstrably not true.

Hew approval ratings have ebbed, and flowed over the years, and there is no reason to believe she cannot bring those numbers up again.

And "...only that I will not vote for Hillary..." leaves only three options: the orangutan-haired Carnival Barker, who's liability numbers are even lower than Hillary's, so, by the standard you are presenting, he is also not a viable option, third party vote, which I explained the futility of, or not voting, which is as bad, if not worse, than voting third party.

 

[hadit]

The real question is, do you even WANT a Hillary presidency with such high negatives? Do you really think she's going to have any kind of mandate if she just manages to get into office while, as you say, everyone hates her? As we saw with The Fragile One, getting elected is just the start. No one cares that you won after that, they care what you're going to do in office.

Actually, I think once HIllary starts correcting many of the misconceptions out there - you, like she committed murder, she hates women, she hates men, she was the secret shooter on the grassy knoll - once she starts correcting all this misinformation that the "New" conservatives are relying on, a lot of those negatives are gonna turn around.

Besides, since Trump's are even worse, if that question were true for Hillary, how much more so is it true for Trump?

And here's the political reality. A "third party option" isn't. Historically, in the last 48 years, the best that a third party candidate did was 12%. In other words he was nothing more than a spoiler for one of the two actual candidates.

They can't get on the debate stage, most can't even get enough support to even get on all 50 ballots, and they don't have anywhere near the war chest to launch any kind of meaningful campaign.

So, while I know the mythical "third party candidate" is the really popular dissension option these days, the reality is it just isn't viable. The only thing the "third party" candidate does is pull from, usually, which ever party is performing the best. In this case it's Hillary. This is why Bernie won't consider an independent run. Because, while he may not be thrilled with Hillary, he has one primary goal - to make sure that the only way Trump ever sees the inside of the White House is as part of one of those Capitol tours.

That doesn't address what I said.

Sure it does. You asked if we want to elect someone with such low likability, implying that such a condition rather disqualifies a candidate from consideration.

First, I pointed out that low likability is fixable. Second, I pointed out that the opposition is worse.

So, unless you were setting up for endorsing voting for a third party, which I dealt with in my final point, then what is your alternative? Not to vote?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I haven't decided yet how I will vote, only that I will not vote for Hillary. I really don't think her likability is fixable. She's had decades to improve it, and it's only gotten worse. In fact, it seems that the more exposure she gets, the less likable she is.

That's demonstrably not true.

Hew approval ratings have ebbed, and flowed over the years, and there is no reason to believe she cannot bring those numbers up again.

And "...only that I will not vote for Hillary..." leaves only three options: the orangutan-haired Carnival Barker, who's liability numbers are even lower than Hillary's, so, by the standard you are presenting, he is also not a viable option, third party vote, which I explained the futility of, or not voting, which is as bad, if not worse, than voting third party.

I'm well aware that it is not likely the next president will be one I favor. I don't, however, see Hillary really making much headway in raising her ratings. She's already low and Trump hasn't even started on her yet.

 

[Czernobog]

Breaking News:

Comey was full of shit!!!!!

Comey characterized Clinton's behaviour over the e-mails and the handling of "classified" information as "extremely careless", which Republicans, and haters of Hillary have insisted was a polite way of saying "grossly negligent" without using the words "grossly negligent" to excuse himself from having to recommend charges be filed.

However, according to the State Department, since Comey’s announcement on Tuesday the public has learned that in fact only 2 of the 55,000 email were marked as classified, and better yet, the two that were deemed classified were actually marked that way by accident.

Soooo...two e-mails out of 55,000 that were incorrectly marked is "extremely careless"?!?! Well, that's an awfully generous use of the term. Once again, Hillary did nothing wrong. But, of course, Republicans can't have that. So, they will continue to run with this dead issue, as if it actually has legs.

I know...I know...It's a huge, vast government conspiracy to protect Hillary. The Justice Department is in on it. The FBI is in on it. The CIA is in on it. Even the State Department is in on it. Clearly, sole purpose of the entire government is to give Hillary clinton cover on how she sent, and received her e-mails.

 

[Czernobog]

Actually, I think once HIllary starts correcting many of the misconceptions out there - you, like she committed murder, she hates women, she hates men, she was the secret shooter on the grassy knoll - once she starts correcting all this misinformation that the "New" conservatives are relying on, a lot of those negatives are gonna turn around.

Besides, since Trump's are even worse, if that question were true for Hillary, how much more so is it true for Trump?

And here's the political reality. A "third party option" isn't. Historically, in the last 48 years, the best that a third party candidate did was 12%. In other words he was nothing more than a spoiler for one of the two actual candidates.

They can't get on the debate stage, most can't even get enough support to even get on all 50 ballots, and they don't have anywhere near the war chest to launch any kind of meaningful campaign.

So, while I know the mythical "third party candidate" is the really popular dissension option these days, the reality is it just isn't viable. The only thing the "third party" candidate does is pull from, usually, which ever party is performing the best. In this case it's Hillary. This is why Bernie won't consider an independent run. Because, while he may not be thrilled with Hillary, he has one primary goal - to make sure that the only way Trump ever sees the inside of the White House is as part of one of those Capitol tours.

That doesn't address what I said.

Sure it does. You asked if we want to elect someone with such low likability, implying that such a condition rather disqualifies a candidate from consideration.

First, I pointed out that low likability is fixable. Second, I pointed out that the opposition is worse.

So, unless you were setting up for endorsing voting for a third party, which I dealt with in my final point, then what is your alternative? Not to vote?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I haven't decided yet how I will vote, only that I will not vote for Hillary. I really don't think her likability is fixable. She's had decades to improve it, and it's only gotten worse. In fact, it seems that the more exposure she gets, the less likable she is.

That's demonstrably not true.

Hew approval ratings have ebbed, and flowed over the years, and there is no reason to believe she cannot bring those numbers up again.

And "...only that I will not vote for Hillary..." leaves only three options: the orangutan-haired Carnival Barker, who's liability numbers are even lower than Hillary's, so, by the standard you are presenting, he is also not a viable option, third party vote, which I explained the futility of, or not voting, which is as bad, if not worse, than voting third party.

I'm well aware that it is not likely the next president will be one I favor. I don't, however, see Hillary really making much headway in raising her ratings. She's already low and Trump hasn't even started on her yet.

"Hasn't even started on her yet"?!?! What campaign have you been watching?!?! Trump spent the last month and a half trying to hammer Hillary! Not that it's done him a whole lot of good...

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Gramps this email stuff is a nothing burger imo. Investigate how politicians become multi-millionaires on a civil servant salary that's where you will find real crimes.

Digging into her emails would have likely exposed how she got rich when they were "poor" after leaving the Whitehouse

 

[hadit]

That doesn't address what I said.

Sure it does. You asked if we want to elect someone with such low likability, implying that such a condition rather disqualifies a candidate from consideration.

First, I pointed out that low likability is fixable. Second, I pointed out that the opposition is worse.

So, unless you were setting up for endorsing voting for a third party, which I dealt with in my final point, then what is your alternative? Not to vote?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I haven't decided yet how I will vote, only that I will not vote for Hillary. I really don't think her likability is fixable. She's had decades to improve it, and it's only gotten worse. In fact, it seems that the more exposure she gets, the less likable she is.

That's demonstrably not true.

Hew approval ratings have ebbed, and flowed over the years, and there is no reason to believe she cannot bring those numbers up again.

And "...only that I will not vote for Hillary..." leaves only three options: the orangutan-haired Carnival Barker, who's liability numbers are even lower than Hillary's, so, by the standard you are presenting, he is also not a viable option, third party vote, which I explained the futility of, or not voting, which is as bad, if not worse, than voting third party.

I'm well aware that it is not likely the next president will be one I favor. I don't, however, see Hillary really making much headway in raising her ratings. She's already low and Trump hasn't even started on her yet.

"Hasn't even started on her yet"?!?! What campaign have you been watching?!?! Trump spent the last month and a half trying to hammer Hillary! Not that it's done him a whole lot of good...

He hasn't gotten to the democrat level of sleazy attacks yet.