[TheRealThing]

You dredged up the ghost of Hitler and the Nazis. Are you suggesting that those voting for Hillary are as the German people who supported Hitler? These are the sorts of analogies that, in my view, taint you with extremism.

As for the SCOTUS as we move forward, I'm not sure HRC (if elected) will get to appoint any more than the present vacancy, in terms of replacing a conservative with a more liberal jurist. 2020 might be the pivotal election for SCOTUS appointments

You're sliding around on me there Sombrero.

I've seen a lot of Presidential candidates come and go. Never before this year have I ever seen one who has been investigated by the FBI, and the US Congress on separate matters of epic import. In addition to that, we have an impending investigation over the Clinton Foundation and it's glaringly fishy good fortunes during the four year stint that Hillary served as the US Secretary of State. But, you think I am "tainted with extremism" while you accept anything she says. LOL yeah, I admit it. I've got this thing for the truth that I just cannot shake free of. I always pass on the liberal assault on truth.

So to answer your question again, and I'm sure you'll dodge the answer again, here goes anyway. Yes, absolutely. Voters then and now sell their vote to the highest bidder. Promises of free goodies are all she has to offer. She has no record, so there is no political science going on here. The people who're bound and determined to voter for her are in it for what they can get. I know this for two reasons; First, she says exactly that every darn day. Second, her constituency are a collaboration of SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS. Every one of them have their hands stuck out for something, Hillary has vowed to fill those hands. And since government has no money of it's own, that means the taxpayer is to be stuck yet again.

Have you looked at Ruth Bader Ginsburg lately?

[The Urban Sombrero]

You're sliding around on me there Sombrero.

I've seen a lot of Presidential candidates come and go. Never before this year have I ever seen one who has been investigated by the FBI, and the US Congress on separate matters of epic import. In addition to that, we have an impending investigation over the Clinton Foundation and it's glaringly fishy good fortunes during the four year stint that Hillary served as the US Secretary of State. But, you think I am "tainted with extremism" while you accept anything she says. LOL yeah, I admit it. I've got this thing for the truth that I just cannot shake free of. I always pass on the liberal assault on truth.

So to answer your question again, and I'm sure you'll dodge the answer again, here goes anyway. Yes, absolutely. Voters then and now sell their vote to the highest bidder. Promises of free goodies are all she has to offer. She has no record, so there is no political science going on here. The people who're bound and determined to voter for her are in it for what they can get. I know this for two reasons; First, she says exactly that every darn day. Second, her constituency are a collaboration of SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS. Every one of them have their hands stuck out for something, Hillary has vowed to fill those hands. And since government has no money of it's own, that means the taxpayer is to be stuck yet again.

Have you looked at Ruth Bader Ginsburg lately?

Most voters pull the lever most connected to self-interest and his or her own pocketbook. I do not agree that all HRC has to offer are free goodies. I do not think she alone is a "bone thrower" to her constituents. The Great Wall of Trump? Reduced tax rates for the wealthiest? Bazookas for the private citizen? I'm simply pointing out a reality: elections are often about the promise sweepstakes.

Ginsburg has looked like that for twenty years.

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆⬆ As far as the email server and the Clinton Foundation: the Clintons have a tendency to play fast and loose with the rules, then use deflection and deception to extricate themselves, or at least buy time and count on the "news cycle amnesia" of the general public. Whether or not this rises above the normal strategies of career politicians, that same public will decide I guess.

"Pay to play" is a serious charge. However, I have said many times that the monied elite, and I mean the real elite of the elite, have the ability to get phone calls through and face-to-face time with policy makers. If a jumpsuit were assembled with the patches of all donors and sponsors, and our politicians were required to wear that jumpsuit, we might get a more impactful visual on who the Puppet Masters really are. If it is proven that a big donation to the Clinton Foundation by "Entity X" directly led to a policy formed or changed that directly benefited "Entity X," I still contend that is not particularly unusual in the "cut a deal" world of politics. However, Secretary of State is pretty high up on the totem pole to be directly involved in pay to play machinations directly benefiting a Foundation in which one is so intimately involved.

[TheRealThing]

Most voters pull the lever most connected to self-interest and his or her own pocketbook. I do not agree that all HRC has to offer are free goodies. I do not think she alone is a "bone thrower" to her constituents. The Great Wall of Trump? Reduced tax rates for the wealthiest? Bazookas for the private citizen? I'm simply pointing out a reality: elections are often about the promise sweepstakes.

Ginsburg has looked like that for twenty years.

Free goodies is the width and depth of her platform, the rest is nothing more than a doubledown on the Obama doctrines. Like I said, if she's elected there won't even need to be a change in personnel. And voting with one's pocketbook is way different from voting with the pocketbook of others, is it not? Her vow is to continue to fleece the so-called rich, which translated means the gainfully employed because if she confiscated every dime the rich now possess, there would still be a calamitous short fall of funds in DC.

The great wall of Trump? So how does a Trump supporter cash in his share of that wall at the bank or the drive-thru? A neat looking credit card with an American flag emblazoned on it's face? :eyeroll: You know the purpose of the wall is to stop the drugs and illegal traffic, interlopers of all kinds, and for all any of us know invasion, for that matter. Free goodies are what it takes to insure the liberal flock another day of beer and pizza. THE day those goodies begin to falter, the streets will be filled with something your side calls constitutionally protected protestors. The scene would likely make Ferguson and Baltimore look like state fairs. On that day, though you might not have the courage to admit it in public, you'll be hoping a few of those private citizens with bazookas step up and divert the looting before it gets to your house.

[Hoot Gibson]

⬆⬆ As far as the email server and the Clinton Foundation: the Clintons have a tendency to play fast and loose with the rules, then use deflection and deception to extricate themselves, or at least buy time and count on the "news cycle amnesia" of the general public. Whether or not this rises above the normal strategies of career politicians, that same public will decide I guess.

"Pay to play" is a serious charge. However, I have said many times that the monied elite, and I mean the real elite of the elite, have the ability to get phone calls through and face-to-face time with policy makers. If a jumpsuit were assembled with the patches of all donors and sponsors, and our politicians were required to wear that jumpsuit, we might get a more impactful visual on who the Puppet Masters really are. If it is proven that a big donation to the Clinton Foundation by "Entity X" directly led to a policy formed or changed that directly benefited "Entity X," I still contend that is not particularly unusual in the "cut a deal" world of politics. However, Secretary of State is pretty high up on the totem pole to be directly involved in pay to play machinations directly benefiting a Foundation in which one is so intimately involved.

Hillary Clinton claimed that she and her husband were flat broke in 2001, which was obviously an exaggeration. However, the couple was not impoverished.

Fast forward today. The couple has an estimated combined net worth of $111 million, with most of their income having been derived for speaking fees paid for by companies and individuals who either do business with the U.S. federal government or are directly impacted by the policies and regulations promulgated by the federal government.

Aside from the ability to influence the promulgation and enforcement or U.S. policies and regulations, what makes these two elderly politicians such a hot commodity on the speaking circuit? Why else would the Russian government pay Bill Clinton $500,000 for delivering a speech in Moscow while his wife served as Sec. of State, if not to influence the policies of the U.S. government?

A smoking gun may be required to place the Clintons where they belong - behind bars, but it is very clear that the Clintons did not impart $111 million of wisdom to their paying customers over the past 15 years.

If you apply Occam's Razor to the question of how two people who have no recent experience working in the private sector, have no specialized knowledge of anything aside from winning elections, and are not particularly gifted speakers, managed to accumulate so much wealth in such a short period of time, then you will know what the Clintons' customers received for their payments. Not with the certainty required for criminal conventions, but more than enough to convict both in the court of public opinion.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Free goodies is the width and depth of her platform, the rest is nothing more than a doubledown on the Obama doctrines. Like I said, if she's elected there won't even need to be a change in personnel. And voting with one's pocketbook is way different from voting with the pocketbook of others, is it not? Her vow is to continue to fleece the so-called rich, which translated means the gainfully employed because if she confiscated every dime the rich now possess, there would still be a calamitous short fall of funds in DC.

The great wall of Trump? So how does a Trump supporter cash in his share of that wall at the bank or the drive-thru? A neat looking credit card with an American flag emblazoned on it's face? :eyeroll: You know the purpose of the wall is to stop the drugs and illegal traffic, interlopers of all kinds, and for all any of us know invasion, for that matter. Free goodies are what it takes to insure the liberal flock another day of beer and pizza. THE day those goodies begin to falter, the streets will be filled with something your side calls constitutionally protected protestors. The scene would likely make Ferguson and Baltimore look like state fairs. On that day, though you might not have the courage to admit it in public, you'll be hoping a few of those private citizens with bazookas step up and divert the looting before it gets to your house.

I doubt your looting scenario, at least in my neck of the woods. You certainly do like hyperbole. You did speak truth about that.

I do not call protesters who practice unlawfullness "constitutionally protected."

To this point, I have suggested HRC isn't Lucifer, that liberals aren't Satan, and that the Clintons are career politicians who have often behaved in the ways career politicians do. That is a statement against extremism, not defending HRC, in my view.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Hillary Clinton claimed that she and her husband were flat broke in 2001, which was obviously an exaggeration. However, the couple was not impoverished.

Fast forward today. The couple has an estimated combined net worth of $111 million, with most of their income having been derived for speaking fees paid for by companies and individuals who either do business with the U.S. federal government or are directly impacted by the policies and regulations promulgated by the federal government.

Aside from the ability to influence the promulgation and enforcement or U.S. policies and regulations, what makes these two elderly politicians such a hot commodity on the speaking circuit? Why else would the Russian government pay Bill Clinton $500,000 for delivering a speech in Moscow while his wife served as Sec. of State, if not to influence the policies of the U.S. government?

A smoking gun may be required to place the Clintons where they belong - behind bars, but it is very clear that the Clintons did not impart $111 million of wisdom to their paying customers over the past 15 years.

If you apply Occam's Razor to the question of how two people who have no recent experience working in the private sector, have no specialized knowledge of anything aside from winning elections, and are not particularly gifted speakers, managed to accumulate so much wealth in such a short period of time, then you will know what the Clintons' customers received for their payments. Not with the certainty required for criminal conventions, but more than enough to convict both in the court of public opinion.

Were you this concerned about Haliburton? Or is it only when Democrats become lobbyists immediately after leaving Congress? Business as usual amongst the political elite.

[Hoot Gibson]

Were you this concerned about Haliburton? Or is it only when Democrats become lobbyists immediately after leaving Congress? Business as usual amongst the political elite.

Your response, which consists of a transparent effort to divert attention away from the weapons grade corruption of the Clintons conflicts with your claims not be be a Clinton supporter. What services do you believe the Clintons provided that were worth $111 million and who do you believe benefited from those services? It is difficult to believe that anybody who plans to vote for Hillary does not understand that they will be voting for a very corrupt candidate.

Granted, you may be able to make a credible argument that the evidence is insufficient to warrant felony convictions of Bill and Hillary, but I never bought the "everybody does it" argument when liberals defended Bill Clinton for lying under oath, and I am not buying it to defend their influence peddling now.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Your response, which consists of a transparent effort to divert attention away from the weapons grade corruption of the Clintons conflicts with your claims not be be a Clinton supporter. What services do you believe the Clintons provided that were worth $111 million and who do you believe benefited from those services? It is difficult to believe that anybody who plans to vote for Hillary does not understand that they will be voting for a very corrupt candidate.

Granted, you may be able to make a credible argument that the evidence is insufficient to warrant felony convictions of Bill and Hillary, but I never bought the "everybody does it" argument when liberals defended Bill Clinton for lying under oath, and I am not buying it to defend their influence peddling now.

Hold on: not all politicians have a "Lewinsky" in all the Oval Office detail. That is far-fetched.

However, politics at the Congressional level is a big money game. Every two years in the House, state wide every six. When big money is needed, Big Money shows up. It's the game career politicians have to play.

If I planned on voting for HRC at this point, I'd voice up. To this point, I am suggesting she is not Lucifer, that liberals are not Satan. Is that an endorsement? In my view, it is a statement about extremist tactics.

This is a difficult election. I will not decide who to vote for until after the debates, and am still considering DJT, as well as Johnson/Weld.

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆⬆ Note: I voted in the past for Ralph Nader. I don't particularly care for how close the Clintons cozy up to big banks and other entities. I doubt seriously I vote for her. However, Big Money and career politicians at the national level? Red and blue both have a go, and in the current system, they almost have to.

[Hoot Gibson]

Hold on: not all politicians have a "Lewinsky" in all the Oval Office detail. That is far-fetched.

However, politics at the Congressional level is a big money game. Every two years in the House, state wide every six. When big money is needed, Big Money shows up. It's the game career politicians have to play.

If I planned on voting for HRC at this point, I'd voice up. To this point, I am suggesting she is not Lucifer, that liberals are not Satan. Is that an endorsement? In my view, it is a statement about extremist tactics.

This is a difficult election. I will not decide who to vote for until after the debates, and am still considering DJT, as well as Johnson/Weld.

Name another family that went from claiming bankruptcy leaving office to amassing a fortune of more than $100 million, while one of the spouses was still engaged in electoral politics. Just one.

There have always been wealthy people elected to office whose fortunes continued to grow after they left office. There have also been former elected officials who became wealthy lobbyists after leaving office or wealthy business people who founded companies that manufactured products.

My question to you, which you are not so artfully dodging, is what service or product has either Clinton provided to paying customers in exchange for $110 million? Clinton, Inc. is anything but business as usual, even in the midst of the corruption of Washington, DC., their unethical conduct towers above their competition.

[TheRealThing]

I doubt your looting scenario, at least in my neck of the woods. You certainly do like hyperbole. You did speak truth about that.

I do not call protesters who practice unlawfullness "constitutionally protected."

To this point, I have suggested HRC isn't Lucifer, that liberals aren't Satan, and that the Clintons are career politicians who have often behaved in the ways career politicians do. That is a statement against extremism, not defending HRC, in my view.

Yeah I know, in your mind BLM does not advocate for violence either. And you might not call protestors who're out burning down neighborhoods constitutionally protected, but I heard Mr Obama do it, more than once in fact. So, the head dog on your side does call them protected under the law and you are a liberal, right? No difference in my book. But I was not speaking in ethnic terms. The base of those on the government dole includes all races, and they'll all be out there looking to take what they can if the freebie train stops delivering. I'm not asking you to believe that, I'm just saying that's what's coming.

Most liberals deny the authority of God's Word. They also deny His character and the fact that His judgment is absolute, without a single loophole for a single trespass. Libs are going to compromise or they're going to know the reason why. All forms of truth is extremism in the purest or strictest sense, and do they ever hate it. The concept is discussed in Galatians 5:9 (KJV)
9 "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump."

Leaven makes the bread taste better, but it permeates every part of the dough. Compromise always tastes much better to the liberal's palate. For some folks, Hillary's constant and seemingly ever present string of lies tastes good. For others of us, they are offensive. I was told that my insurance premium rates would go down 2,500 dollars in the first year of the ObamaCare mandate. Not only did my insurance premium double since 2009, my copay amounts shot through the roof too. No, the lies are tough to swallow for some of us.

[The Urban Sombrero]

[quote=Hoot Gibson]Name another family that went from claiming bankruptcy leaving office to amassing a fortune of more than $100 million, while one of the spouses was still engaged in electoral politics. Just one.

There have always been wealthy people elected to office whose fortunes continued to grow after they left office. There have also been former elected officials who became wealthy lobbyists after leaving office or wealthy business people who founded companies that manufactured products.

My question to you, which you are not so artfully dodging, is what service or product has either Clinton provided to paying customers in exchange for $110 million? Clinton, Inc. is anything but business as usual, even in the midst of the corruption of Washington, DC., their unethical conduct towers above their competition.[/QUOTE



They are the Clintons. What service does John Calipari provide a company who engages him to speak? Non-athletes who always want to hang with athletes used to be called "jock sniffers."
A lot of corporate types like to "sniff jock" amongst the power elite. The "service," the "product," is proximity to power, an ego game.

If the Clintons are proven guilty of quid pro quo "pay to play," I'll shed no tears. But, the overwhelming desire to see them go down on the right has often led to spurious "convict with no trial" headlines on less than real journalism sites.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Yeah I know, in your mind BLM does not advocate for violence either. And you might not call protestors who're out burning down neighborhoods constitutionally protected, but I heard Mr Obama do it, more than once in fact. So, the head dog on your side does call them protected under the law and you are a liberal, right? No difference in my book. But I was not speaking in ethnic terms. The base of those on the government dole includes all races, and they'll all be out there looking to take what they can if the freebie train stops delivering. I'm not asking you to believe that, I'm just saying that's what's coming.

Most liberals deny the authority of God's Word. They also deny His character and the fact that His judgment is absolute, without a single loophole for a single trespass. Libs are going to compromise or they're going to know the reason why. All forms of truth is extremism in the purest or strictest sense, and do they ever hate it. The concept is discussed in Galatians 5:9 (KJV)
9 "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump."

Leaven makes the bread taste better, but it permeates every part of the dough. Compromise always tastes much better to the liberal's palate. For some folks, Hillary's constant and seemingly ever present string of lies tastes good. For others of us, they are offensive. I was told that my insurance premium rates would go down 2,500 dollars in the first year of the ObamaCare mandate. Not only did my insurance premium double since 2009, my copay amounts shot through the roof too. No, the lies are tough to swallow for some of us.

If somebody burns a business, or assaults someone, etc. they are breaking the law, not exercising free speech. No matter the cause.

We have hashed and re-hashed our differences on what essential liberty means. We simply disagree. Leaven analogy, as used, refers to the church and its beliefs, correct?

Extremism tends to see in a political opponent incarnate evil. Extremism tends to never read opposing opinion. Extremism speaks apocolyptically about routine disagreement. Ultimately, extremism bulldozes freedom in favor of orthodoxy.

[TheRealThing]

If somebody burns a business, or assaults someone, etc. they are breaking the law, not exercising free speech. No matter the cause.

We have hashed and re-hashed our differences on what essential liberty means. We simply disagree. Leaven analogy, as used, refers to the church and its beliefs, correct?

Extremism tends to see in a political opponent incarnate evil. Extremism tends to never read opposing opinion. Extremism speaks apocolyptically about routine disagreement. Ultimately, extremism bulldozes freedom in favor of orthodoxy.

It's the forest for the trees syndrome again. Rioting and arson are not protests they are crimes, and as such are not sanctioned by the federal government nor are such examples of lawlessness protected under the US Constitution. None the less, President Obama said the rioters of Ferguson and Baltimore and other places including Atlanta and LA were exercising their constitutionally protected rights to protest. Now, right there's your extremism. Embodied within those very acts of destruction. And your party the Democrats, and therefore you, are part of it all.

And I don't buy the freedom getting bulldozed by orthodoxy deal either. Freedom gets bulldozed when special interest groups are not held to the same standards of law the rest of us are, and even worse are financially coddled and wooed to become part of a certain party's voting base. Freedom is further bulldozed when fully one half, and in this day more than half, of all the people's elected officials (Republicans) are continually slammed by Dems on the national and global stage. Freedom gets bulldozed when the people get lied to about ransoms and other shenanigans, like the importation of who knows how many Syrian refugees. The rest of those who may now be self sufficient, but who're on board anyway with the idea of the US cannibalizing certain segments of it's citizenry to redistribute that cannibalized wealth to other segments, are every bit as vacuous as the typical cheerleader of moviedom.

I know Bill Clinton showed us all how to compartmentalize our lives. But truth transcends the partitions which form those compartments whether we want it to or not. When men stand before God at the Judgment, all of their lives will be held in the balance. Not just their lives at Church. In fact, I don't believe any such partition exists in any case. All of life for the believer is like being in Church 24/7 because I assure you, God won't be making any separations or carve outs. We are responsible before Him.

But if compromise permeates dough, and therefore as the Scripture teaches, also permeates the life of a believer spiritually, that means it will permeate every walk of life on this earth. But though man is compromised by it, truth never is. So regardless of what Bill says the meaning of is, is, the truth is still pure. Adam and Eve through their sin brought compromise and death into this world, and Satan's model for Eve to rationalize her sin is still in use to this very day. The point is, the ungodly prefer to have their truth spiced up a bit. That would be in or out of Church the way I see it.

[The Urban Sombrero]

It's the forest for the trees syndrome again. Rioting and arson are not protests they are crimes, and as such are not sanctioned by the federal government nor are such examples of lawlessness protected under the US Constitution. None the less, President Obama said the rioters of Ferguson and Baltimore and other places including Atlanta and LA were exercising their constitutionally protected rights to protest. Now, right there's your extremism. Embodied within those very acts of destruction. And your party the Democrats, and therefore you, are part of it all.

And I don't buy the freedom getting bulldozed by orthodoxy deal either. Freedom gets bulldozed when special interest groups are not held to the same standards of law the rest of us are, and even worse are financially coddled and wooed to become part of a certain party's voting base. Freedom is further bulldozed when fully one half, and in this day more than half, of all the people's elected officials (Republicans) are continually slammed by Dems on the national and global stage. Freedom gets bulldozed when the people get lied to about ransoms and other shenanigans, like the importation of who knows how many Syrian refugees. The rest of those who may now be self sufficient, but who're on board anyway with the idea of the US cannibalizing certain segments of it's citizenry to redistribute that cannibalized wealth to other segments, are every bit as vacuous as the typical cheerleader of moviedom.

I know Bill Clinton showed us all how to compartmentalize our lives. But truth transcends the partitions which form those compartments whether we want it to or not. When men stand before God at the Judgment, all of their lives will be held in the balance. Not just their lives at Church. In fact, I don't believe any such partition exists in any case. All of life for the believer is like being in Church 24/7 because I assure you, God won't be making any separations or carve outs. We are responsible before Him.

But if compromise permeates dough, and therefore as the Scripture teaches, also permeates the life of a believer spiritually, that means it will permeate every walk of life on this earth. But though man is compromised by it, truth never is. So regardless of what Bill says the meaning of is, is, the truth is still pure. Adam and Eve through their sin brought compromise and death into this world, and Satan's model for Eve to rationalize her sin is still in use to this very day. The point is, the ungodly prefer to have their truth spiced up a bit. That would be in or out of Church the way I see it.

This thread began with Charles Manson equated to Hillary Clinton.
I might have hoped you would disavow that. You haven't. I really think that says more about the point I am making than all the obfuscation.

[Hoot Gibson]

Name another family that went from claiming bankruptcy leaving office to amassing a fortune of more than $100 million, while one of the spouses was still engaged in electoral politics. Just one.

There have always been wealthy people elected to office whose fortunes continued to grow after they left office. There have also been former elected officials who became wealthy lobbyists after leaving office or wealthy business people who founded companies that manufactured products.

My question to you, which you are not so artfully dodging, is what service or product has either Clinton provided to paying customers in exchange for $110 million? Clinton, Inc. is anything but business as usual, even in the midst of the corruption of Washington, DC., their unethical conduct towers above their competition.

They are the Clintons. What service does John Calipari provide a company who engages him to speak? Non-athletes who always want to hang with athletes used to be called "jock sniffers."
A lot of corporate types like to "sniff jock" amongst the power elite. The "service," the "product," is proximity to power, an ego game.

If the Clintons are proven guilty of quid pro quo "pay to play," I'll shed no tears. But, the overwhelming desire to see them go down on the right has often led to spurious "convict with no trial" headlines on less than real journalism sites.

Thanks for yet another non-sequitur. When John Calipari is paid to speak, it is generally done to provide entertainment and motivation to his audience and the speaking fees paid never approach the level commanded by the Clintons. But you already know that, don't you?

You, one who professes not to be a Clinton supporter, continue to engage in the defense of the indefensible. There need not be a conviction, with or without a trial, for there to be a merciful and just end to a political career. The time for political justice for the Clintons is long overdue. Clinton apologists, through their twisted logic in defense of political corruption, only invite the rise of even worse examples of humanity to powerful positions in this country.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Thanks for yet another non-sequitur. When John Calipari is paid to speak, it is generally done to provide entertainment and motivation to his audience and the speaking fees paid never approach the level commanded by the Clintons. But you already know that, don't you?

You, one who professes not to be a Clinton supporter, continue to engage in the defense of the indefensible. There need not be a conviction, with or without a trial, for there to be a merciful and just end to a political career. The time for political justice for the Clintons is long overdue. Clinton apologists, through their twisted logic in defense of political corruption, only invite the rise of even worse examples of humanity to powerful positions in this country.

What "does not follow" are folks who continually skirt around the fact that asserting things like "HRC=Charles Manson" and "Liberals=Satan" demonstrate extremist thinking. As long as a major political party has to dance with extremists in the primaries, it is going to be treacherous in general elections nationally.

What I asserted is that a face-to-face meeting often satisfies the "power jock sniffer." Of course many also want pet projects and policies to get "favored nation" status with power elites. Are the Clintons more adept at using "power jock sniffers" than most to acquire donations? That's probable. Again, if "quid pro quo" exchanges are proven, I'll shed no tears when consequences flow.

[Hoot Gibson]

What "does not follow" are folks who continually skirt around the fact that asserting things like "HRC=Charles Manson" and "Liberals=Satan" demonstrate extremist thinking. As long as a major political party has to dance with extremists in the primaries, it is going to be treacherous in general elections nationally.

What I asserted is that a face-to-face meeting often satisfies the "power jock sniffer." Of course many also want pet projects and policies to get "favored nation" status with power elites. Are the Clintons more adept at using "power jock sniffers" than most to acquire donations? That's probable. Again, if "quid pro quo" exchanges are proven, I'll shed no tears when consequences flow.

I am not one of those "folks" about whom you speak, so I am not sure why you believe that it helps your position in a debate with me. I concluded years ago that Hillary Clinton is not fit for the White House, but I concluded the same about Trump months ago.

When American citizens, such as yourself, accept the proposition that allegations against presidential candidates must meet the same burden of proof as a criminal conviction, then they encourage the very same actions that Hillary has taken - the deliberate, careful, and systematic destruction of damning evidence.

After nearly 8 years in office, Obama has demonstrated how easy it is for a president and his corrupt administration to stonewall, conceal, and destroy evidence of alleged criminal activity. Every time voters ignore the preponderance of evidence that candidates are corrupt to the core and elect people like Hillary, Obama, or Trump to public office, they pave the path for even more corrupt candidates to make that trek.

Our nation's founders did not go to war to overthrow the English monarchy to replace it with a slightly less onerous system of government. When we vote for corrupt officials and settle for the lesser evils, we send the wrong message to the next generation of candidates.

Our public officials must be held to a higher standard than our convicted criminals. Requiring proof of a crime sets a very, very low bar for disqualifying presidential candidates.

[TheRealThing]

This thread began with Charles Manson equated to Hillary Clinton.
I might have hoped you would disavow that. You haven't. I really think that says more about the point I am making than all the obfuscation.

I'm sorry, I just don't see how one vulture which prefers to eat dead skunk, is any better than the vulture which prefers dead snake. Both bills of fare stink to high heaven. Then comes along the airwick of lore which is liberal/progressivism, and the stink for them becomes the delight.

Obfuscation is the stock-in-trade of the lib and I had my fill of it way back towards the end of the Jimmy Carter Administration. It was at that point I realized that the Dems and the media believed they had the power to give 'the people' their opinions. And who could have blamed them? To this day I regularly run into folks who still trust only Dems, and will vote for Hillary this time no matter what comes out of any congressional probe or WikiLeaks exposé. Their support for their beloved Dems is as blind as it is dogged. Like I said, the ungodly prefer to define truth in their own terms. Which in the political arena only means of course, that they are prepared to lower their standards for candidates such as Hillary, while raising the bar to impossible heights for any would be opponent.

We live in a country where people insist it is okay to vote for Democrats because they are supposedly better for the jobs situation. That was the case during the FDR Era and remains so even though voters know those same Dems today, are unashamedly and hair on fire all-in for abortion on demand. I don't believe for one second we must tolerate the slaughter of the innocents or go hungry. It's a lie, just as is the notion that Republicans are greedy, racist, woman haters. My observation has been such that the name calling and finger pointing over the past decades have come from the left.

Many people believe that Hillary has and is, is, getting away with all manner of trespass and they are offended. Therefore the hyperbole, it is a way of venting frustration for those with their eyes open.

[The Urban Sombrero]

I'm sorry, I just don't see how one vulture which prefers to eat dead skunk, is any better than the vulture which prefers dead snake. Both bills of fare stink to high heaven. Then comes along the airwick of lore which is liberal/progressivism, and the stink for them becomes the delight.

Obfuscation is the stock-in-trade of the lib and I had my fill of it way back towards the end of the Jimmy Carter Administration. It was at that point I realized that the Dems and the media believed they had the power to give 'the people' their opinions. And who could have blamed them? To this day I regularly run into folks who still trust only Dems, and will vote for Hillary this time no matter what comes out of any congressional probe or WikiLeaks exposé. Their support for their beloved Dems is as blind as it is dogged. Like I said, the ungodly prefer to define truth in their own terms. Which in the political arena only means of course, that they are prepared to lower their standards for candidates such as Hillary, while raising the bar to impossible heights for any would be opponent.

We live in a country where people insist it is okay to vote for Democrats because they are supposedly better for the jobs situation. That was the case during the FDR Era and remains so even though voters know those same Dems today, are unashamedly and hair on fire all-in for abortion on demand. I don't believe for one second we must tolerate the slaughter of the innocents or go hungry. It's a lie, just as is the notion that Republicans are greedy, racist, woman haters. My observation has been such that the name calling and finger pointing over the past decades have come from the left.

Many people believe that Hillary has and is, is, getting away with all manner of trespass and they are offended. Therefore the hyperbole, it is a way of venting frustration for those with their eyes open.

If you make no difference between Hillary Clinton and Charles Manson, I'll let that stand for itself.

If you contend that liberals are more apt to resort to lowest common denominator politics than conservatives, I'll let that stand for itself.

Again, I assert that career politicians are the ultimate career survivalists, regardless of philosophy or party.

[The Urban Sombrero]

I am not one of those "folks" about whom you speak, so I am not sure why you believe that it helps your position in a debate with me. I concluded years ago that Hillary Clinton is not fit for the White House, but I concluded the same about Trump months ago.

When American citizens, such as yourself, accept the proposition that allegations against presidential candidates must meet the same burden of proof as a criminal conviction, then they encourage the very same actions that Hillary has taken - the deliberate, careful, and systematic destruction of damning evidence.

After nearly 8 years in office, Obama has demonstrated how easy it is for a president and his corrupt administration to stonewall, conceal, and destroy evidence of alleged criminal activity. Every time voters ignore the preponderance of evidence that candidates are corrupt to the core and elect people like Hillary, Obama, or Trump to public office, they pave the path for even more corrupt candidates to make that trek.

Our nation's founders did not go to war to overthrow the English monarchy to replace it with a slightly less onerous system of government. When we vote for corrupt officials and settle for the lesser evils, we send the wrong message to the next generation of candidates.

Our public officials must be held to a higher standard than our convicted criminals. Requiring proof of a crime sets a very, very low bar for disqualifying presidential candidates.

What I said was is this: when definitive proof is brought forward that HRC engaged in quid pro quo, pay for play antics, I will shed no tears. However, I will not simply "read and worship" the propoganda rag, "our side at any cost" pseudo journalism of the right. The American public will go to the polls on November 8. I will accept their decision. I won't call them stupid, or sheep, or "takers" if HRC wins. I won't call them "crackers," or bigots, or right wing whack jobs if DJT wins. Yet another peaceful transfer of power will occur. And the exercise of free speech on BGR and elsewhere will continue.

[Hoot Gibson]

What I said was is this: when definitive proof is brought forward that HRC engaged in quid pro quo, pay for play antics, I will shed no tears. However, I will not simply "read and worship" the propoganda rag, "our side at any cost" pseudo journalism of the right. The American public will go to the polls on November 8. I will accept their decision. I won't call them stupid, or sheep, or "takers" if HRC wins. I won't call them "crackers," or bigots, or right wing whack jobs if DJT wins. Yet another peaceful transfer of power will occur. And the exercise of free speech on BGR and elsewhere will continue.

I read what you said the first few times. You are nothing if not repetitive. If the evidence that Hillary Clinton is insufficient for you to reach that conclusion, you will never reach that decision because it is extremely unlikely that she will ever be put on trial for her crimes. That is just how it is when you are preside over a corrupt system put in place by a nation of sheep.

In a representative republic, if voters do not hold candidates to a high standard, then their elected representatives will certainly not hold themselves to a high standard.

[The Urban Sombrero]

I read what you said the first few times. You are nothing if not repetitive. If the evidence that Hillary Clinton is insufficient for you to reach that conclusion, you will never reach that decision because it is extremely unlikely that she will ever be put on trial for her crimes. That is just how it is when you are preside over a corrupt system put in place by a nation of sheep.

In a representative republic, if voters do not hold candidates to a high standard, then their elected representatives will certainly not hold themselves to a high standard.

I keep thinking "surely this guy is not as naive about the history of politics in this nation as he lets on." You familiar with how Lincoln got enough of his delegates seated to get the nomination? Politics reflects human nature in all its heroic to rotten permutations. History resounds with an affirmative "Yes."

[Hoot Gibson]

I keep thinking "surely this guy is not as naive about the history of politics in this nation as he lets on." You familiar with how Lincoln got enough of his delegates seated to get the nomination? Politics reflects human nature in all its heroic to rotten permutations. History resounds with an affirmative "Yes."

Back to the "everybody does it" defense that Clinton supporters employ so often. Nothing that Lincoln was ever accused of doing approaches the corruption alleged against Hillary and her husband. You are not fooling anybody with your attempt to project objectivity where none exists.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Back to the "everybody does it" defense that Clinton supporters employ so often. Nothing that Lincoln was ever accused of doing approaches the corruption alleged against Hillary and her husband. You are not fooling anybody with your attempt to project objectivity where none exists.

Yes, yes, by saying HRC is not Lucifer I am demonstrating support for her. Oh, certainly, by suggesting the Clinton's are career politicians, and have acted as such, yes, no doubt, this is adamant support.

Bill and Hilary are far from squeaky clean. However, to suggest she is more unfit to be President than anyone who has ever run? Again, I'll let that stand for itself.

[Bob Seger]

This thread began with Charles Manson equated to Hillary Clinton.
I might have hoped you would disavow that. You haven't. I really think that says more about the point I am making than all the obfuscation.

No it didn't, get it right cowboy!!...One does not equate to the other at all. Charlie Manson can't carry the Clinton's jock strap when it comes to evilness or corruptness.

[Bob Seger]

I am not one of those "folks" about whom you speak, so I am not sure why you believe that it helps your position in a debate with me. I concluded years ago that Hillary Clinton is not fit for the White House, but I concluded the same about Trump months ago.

When American citizens, such as yourself, accept the proposition that allegations against presidential candidates must meet the same burden of proof as a criminal conviction, then they encourage the very same actions that Hillary has taken - the deliberate, careful, and systematic destruction of damning evidence.

After nearly 8 years in office, Obama has demonstrated how easy it is for a president and his corrupt administration to stonewall, conceal, and destroy evidence of alleged criminal activity. Every time voters ignore the preponderance of evidence that candidates are corrupt to the core and elect people like Hillary, Obama, or Trump to public office, they pave the path for even more corrupt candidates to make that trek.

Our nation's founders did not go to war to overthrow the English monarchy to replace it with a slightly less onerous system of government. When we vote for corrupt officials and settle for the lesser evils, we send the wrong message to the next generation of candidates.

Our public officials must be held to a higher standard than our convicted criminals. Requiring proof of a crime sets a very, very low bar for disqualifying presidential candidates.

Nope Hoot, you're safe.That would be me he is referring to.....lol

Guess what, that will be the day when I care about what Mr. Sheep thinks.

[Bob Seger]

Yes, yes, by saying HRC is not Lucifer I am demonstrating support for her. Oh, certainly, by suggesting the Clinton's are career politicians, and have acted as such, yes, no doubt, this is adamant support.

Bill and Hilary are far from squeaky clean. However, to suggest she is more unfit to be President than anyone who has ever run? Again, I'll let that stand for itself.

Name one that has been more unfit?
:popcorn:

[Hoot Gibson]

Yes, yes, by saying HRC is not Lucifer I am demonstrating support for her. Oh, certainly, by suggesting the Clinton's are career politicians, and have acted as such, yes, no doubt, this is adamant support.

Bill and Hilary are far from squeaky clean. However, to suggest she is more unfit to be President than anyone who has ever run? Again, I'll let that stand for itself.

The Clintons have not comported themselves as typical career politicians and neither has ever done anything to warrant mention in the same post as Abraham Lincoln, or any other decent man to ever hold the office of president.

The difference in raking in millions of dollars of income from foreign governments and foreign nationals, while one of them worked in the service of the U.S. government places Bill and Hillary in a class by themselves.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke

It is not too late for good men to act, but both major parties have missed golden opportunities.