If you are a Democrat, are you having 2nd thoughts about Hillary?

[PaintMyHouse]

So to sum up so far, the Republicans are still 100% against Hillary, but The Democrats don't seem to have a problem with her even with all the decades of silly claims made against her. Looks like after all the years of false accusations, she has become invulnerable to Republican crap, and any more silly claims just bounce off her like bullets off superman's chest.

YAWN

if Dems "dont seem to have a problem with her" then why is Sanders leading her in several polls? and why is Biden considering jumping in the race genius?

I welcome all qualified contestants. That doesn't mean I have found a single reason to oppose Hillary. It just means there could be someone better. It's still too early to make a final decision.

There are always better people, the question is, can they win?

 

[bedowin62]

if you have a brain you SHOULD be having second thoughts about being a Democrat

 

[BULLDOG]

So to sum up so far, the Republicans are still 100% against Hillary, but The Democrats don't seem to have a problem with her even with all the decades of silly claims made against her. Looks like after all the years of false accusations, she has become invulnerable to Republican crap, and any more silly claims just bounce off her like bullets off superman's chest.

Lol... I'm sure she is feeling fancy free right now. Not a worry in the world.

I wouldn't go that far, but I'm sure she doesn't spend much time trying to discredit right wing accusations. They discredit themselves.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If you are a Democrat, are you having 2nd thoughts about Hillary?

No...

What would it take to have a second thought about her? An indictment or would that be political?

It would take an act of God, literally. When you have the winning ticket you don't toss it in the bin.

 

[Jackson]

So to sum up so far, the Republicans are still 100% against Hillary, but The Democrats don't seem to have a problem with her even with all the decades of silly claims made against her. Looks like after all the years of false accusations, she has become invulnerable to Republican crap, and any more silly claims just bounce off her like bullets off superman's chest.

YAWN

if Dems "dont seem to have a problem with her" then why is Sanders leading her in several polls? and why is Biden considering jumping in the race genius?

I welcome all qualified contestants. That doesn't mean I have found a single reason to oppose Hillary. It just means there could be someone better. It's still too early to make a final decision.

There are always better people, the question is, can they win?

Oh, I hadn't thought of it that way. You are going for the candidate you think could win rather than the most competent or the best candidate. That is probably how a lot of people feel.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So to sum up so far, the Republicans are still 100% against Hillary, but The Democrats don't seem to have a problem with her even with all the decades of silly claims made against her. Looks like after all the years of false accusations, she has become invulnerable to Republican crap, and any more silly claims just bounce off her like bullets off superman's chest.

YAWN

if Dems "dont seem to have a problem with her" then why is Sanders leading her in several polls? and why is Biden considering jumping in the race genius?

I welcome all qualified contestants. That doesn't mean I have found a single reason to oppose Hillary. It just means there could be someone better. It's still too early to make a final decision.

There are always better people, the question is, can they win?

Oh, I hadn't thought of it that way. You are going for the candidate you think could win rather than the most competent or the best candidate. That is probably how a lot of people feel.

The point of an election is to win, period.

 

[BULLDOG]

if you have a brain you SHOULD be having second thoughts about being a Democrat

If you feel that way, you are free to vote or someone else. There is a wide selection of crazies in the GOP clown car, and I'm sure you will find one of them will fit your outlook perfectly.

 

[The Rabbi]

If you are a Democrat, are you having 2nd thoughts about Hillary?

No...

You would have to have thoughts before you could have second thoughts.

 

[Jackson]

So to sum up so far, the Republicans are still 100% against Hillary, but The Democrats don't seem to have a problem with her even with all the decades of silly claims made against her. Looks like after all the years of false accusations, she has become invulnerable to Republican crap, and any more silly claims just bounce off her like bullets off superman's chest.

YAWN

if Dems "dont seem to have a problem with her" then why is Sanders leading her in several polls? and why is Biden considering jumping in the race genius?

I welcome all qualified contestants. That doesn't mean I have found a single reason to oppose Hillary. It just means there could be someone better. It's still too early to make a final decision.

There are always better people, the question is, can they win?

Oh, I hadn't thought of it that way. You are going for the candidate you think could win rather than the most competent or the best candidate. That is probably how a lot of people feel.

The point of an election is to win, period.

That's one way to look at it. Now I understand the re-election of Obama. Don't vote for the best candidate, just one you think will win, good or bad.

 

[Mac1958]

Out of the endless shitstorm of accusations about her, the one that has bothered me is the email thing, and it looks like it's the one that may stick.

But assuming she gets the nomination, the GOP still has to run a candidate who can beat her.

.

You arent bothered by the apparent bribery? One of the Swiss banks, which had never contributed to the Clinton Foundation, found itself between US disclosure laws and Swiss secrecy laws. They appealed to Clinton as SecState and she got them a waiver on US laws. Immediately after that the Foundation received millions of dollars in contributions from this same bank.
Coincidence? No, I dont think so.

It's not about being bothered by something - I can not and will not vote for her because, among other reasons, she is untrustworthy - it's about a charge that sticks legally and actually takes her out. As long as that doesn't happen, many voters will turn a blind eye to all her, um, stuff.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

YAWN

if Dems "dont seem to have a problem with her" then why is Sanders leading her in several polls? and why is Biden considering jumping in the race genius?

I welcome all qualified contestants. That doesn't mean I have found a single reason to oppose Hillary. It just means there could be someone better. It's still too early to make a final decision.

There are always better people, the question is, can they win?

Oh, I hadn't thought of it that way. You are going for the candidate you think could win rather than the most competent or the best candidate. That is probably how a lot of people feel.

The point of an election is to win, period.

That's one way to look at it. Now I understand the re-election of Obama. Don't vote for the best candidate, just one you think will win, good or bad.

That's exactly it with Democrats. They dont care about qualifications, ethics, fitness for office or anything else. There is no other measure than ability to win.
This is why Democrats are the most morally corrupt sons of bitches on this planet. A total absence of objectivity and morality. All that is important is winning.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

YAWN

if Dems "dont seem to have a problem with her" then why is Sanders leading her in several polls? and why is Biden considering jumping in the race genius?

I welcome all qualified contestants. That doesn't mean I have found a single reason to oppose Hillary. It just means there could be someone better. It's still too early to make a final decision.

There are always better people, the question is, can they win?

Oh, I hadn't thought of it that way. You are going for the candidate you think could win rather than the most competent or the best candidate. That is probably how a lot of people feel.

The point of an election is to win, period.

That's one way to look at it. Now I understand the re-election of Obama. Don't vote for the best candidate, just one you think will win, good or bad.

Not much point in voting for who can't win now is there?

 

[The Rabbi]

Out of the endless shitstorm of accusations about her, the one that has bothered me is the email thing, and it looks like it's the one that may stick.

But assuming she gets the nomination, the GOP still has to run a candidate who can beat her.

.

You arent bothered by the apparent bribery? One of the Swiss banks, which had never contributed to the Clinton Foundation, found itself between US disclosure laws and Swiss secrecy laws. They appealed to Clinton as SecState and she got them a waiver on US laws. Immediately after that the Foundation received millions of dollars in contributions from this same bank.
Coincidence? No, I dont think so.

It's not about being bothered by something - I can not and will not vote for her because, among other reasons, she is untrustworthy - it's about a charge that sticks legally and actually takes her out. As long as that doesn't happen, many voters will turn a blind eye to all her, um, stuff.

.

When people cease being outraged by that kind of behavior then this country is doomed.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I welcome all qualified contestants. That doesn't mean I have found a single reason to oppose Hillary. It just means there could be someone better. It's still too early to make a final decision.

There are always better people, the question is, can they win?

Oh, I hadn't thought of it that way. You are going for the candidate you think could win rather than the most competent or the best candidate. That is probably how a lot of people feel.

The point of an election is to win, period.

That's one way to look at it. Now I understand the re-election of Obama. Don't vote for the best candidate, just one you think will win, good or bad.

That's exactly it with Democrats. They dont care about qualifications, ethics, fitness for office or anything else. There is no other measure than ability to win.
This is why Democrats are the most morally corrupt sons of bitches on this planet. A total absence of objectivity and morality. All that is important is winning.

Being objective about an election means you don't run or vote for losers, dumbass.

 

[Mac1958]

Out of the endless shitstorm of accusations about her, the one that has bothered me is the email thing, and it looks like it's the one that may stick.

But assuming she gets the nomination, the GOP still has to run a candidate who can beat her.

.

You arent bothered by the apparent bribery? One of the Swiss banks, which had never contributed to the Clinton Foundation, found itself between US disclosure laws and Swiss secrecy laws. They appealed to Clinton as SecState and she got them a waiver on US laws. Immediately after that the Foundation received millions of dollars in contributions from this same bank.
Coincidence? No, I dont think so.

It's not about being bothered by something - I can not and will not vote for her because, among other reasons, she is untrustworthy - it's about a charge that sticks legally and actually takes her out. As long as that doesn't happen, many voters will turn a blind eye to all her, um, stuff..

When people cease being outraged by that kind of behavior then this country is doomed.

The decay of standards and expectations across the board is well underway already.

.

 

[BULLDOG]

Out of the endless shitstorm of accusations about her, the one that has bothered me is the email thing, and it looks like it's the one that may stick.

But assuming she gets the nomination, the GOP still has to run a candidate who can beat her.

.

You arent bothered by the apparent bribery? One of the Swiss banks, which had never contributed to the Clinton Foundation, found itself between US disclosure laws and Swiss secrecy laws. They appealed to Clinton as SecState and she got them a waiver on US laws. Immediately after that the Foundation received millions of dollars in contributions from this same bank.
Coincidence? No, I dont think so.

It's not about being bothered by something - I can not and will not vote for her because, among other reasons, she is untrustworthy - it's about a charge that sticks legally and actually takes her out. As long as that doesn't happen, many voters will turn a blind eye to all her, um, stuff.

.

So far, none of her, um, stuff, has turned out to be true. Why would you give any credibility to a bunch of lies? ..........Oh, that's right, you're a right winger. You'll believe anything.

 

[The Rabbi]

There are always better people, the question is, can they win?

Oh, I hadn't thought of it that way. You are going for the candidate you think could win rather than the most competent or the best candidate. That is probably how a lot of people feel.

The point of an election is to win, period.

That's one way to look at it. Now I understand the re-election of Obama. Don't vote for the best candidate, just one you think will win, good or bad.

That's exactly it with Democrats. They dont care about qualifications, ethics, fitness for office or anything else. There is no other measure than ability to win.
This is why Democrats are the most morally corrupt sons of bitches on this planet. A total absence of objectivity and morality. All that is important is winning.

Being objective about an election means you don't run or vote for losers, dumbass.

Dumbshit. You vote for "qualified" candidates. Candidates who take bribes, who commit perjury, who lie cheat and steal are not qualified. It doesnt matter how much they look like winners. They are not qualified for office.

 

[Mac1958]

Out of the endless shitstorm of accusations about her, the one that has bothered me is the email thing, and it looks like it's the one that may stick.

But assuming she gets the nomination, the GOP still has to run a candidate who can beat her.

.

You arent bothered by the apparent bribery? One of the Swiss banks, which had never contributed to the Clinton Foundation, found itself between US disclosure laws and Swiss secrecy laws. They appealed to Clinton as SecState and she got them a waiver on US laws. Immediately after that the Foundation received millions of dollars in contributions from this same bank.
Coincidence? No, I dont think so.

It's not about being bothered by something - I can not and will not vote for her because, among other reasons, she is untrustworthy - it's about a charge that sticks legally and actually takes her out. As long as that doesn't happen, many voters will turn a blind eye to all her, um, stuff.

.

So far, none of her, um, stuff, has turned out to be true. Why would you give any credibility to a bunch of lies? ..........Oh, that's right, you're a right winger. You'll believe anything.

Yet another one who doesn't know my politics.

Perhaps you didn't read where I used the phrase "endless shitstorm of accusations".

Calm down.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

Out of the endless shitstorm of accusations about her, the one that has bothered me is the email thing, and it looks like it's the one that may stick.

But assuming she gets the nomination, the GOP still has to run a candidate who can beat her.

.

You arent bothered by the apparent bribery? One of the Swiss banks, which had never contributed to the Clinton Foundation, found itself between US disclosure laws and Swiss secrecy laws. They appealed to Clinton as SecState and she got them a waiver on US laws. Immediately after that the Foundation received millions of dollars in contributions from this same bank.
Coincidence? No, I dont think so.

It's not about being bothered by something - I can not and will not vote for her because, among other reasons, she is untrustworthy - it's about a charge that sticks legally and actually takes her out. As long as that doesn't happen, many voters will turn a blind eye to all her, um, stuff..

When people cease being outraged by that kind of behavior then this country is doomed.

The decay of standards and expectations across the board is well underway already.

.

I hope that wasnt a moral equivalence cop out. Because nothing like that happens with the GOP.

 

[BULLDOG]

I welcome all qualified contestants. That doesn't mean I have found a single reason to oppose Hillary. It just means there could be someone better. It's still too early to make a final decision.

There are always better people, the question is, can they win?

Oh, I hadn't thought of it that way. You are going for the candidate you think could win rather than the most competent or the best candidate. That is probably how a lot of people feel.

The point of an election is to win, period.

That's one way to look at it. Now I understand the re-election of Obama. Don't vote for the best candidate, just one you think will win, good or bad.

That's exactly it with Democrats. They dont care about qualifications, ethics, fitness for office or anything else. There is no other measure than ability to win.
This is why Democrats are the most morally corrupt sons of bitches on this planet. A total absence of objectivity and morality. All that is important is winning.

Sad that you believe that, but really, your opinion doesn't count.