A Very Serious Question For The American People! (Page 11): This is the Attic. Running one's mouth is what happens here.

Rose42

Elaine2025 wrote:

You have your opinion, I have mine. It is one thin... (show quote)

This is the Attic. Running one's mouth is what happens here.

Frosty Loc: Minnesota

Cykdelic wrote:

She lost 60% pf the States, period. Having trouble with that fact?

You have a lack of logic as logic is based in fact, and those are the facts.

Nearly 3 million more people v**ed for Hillary than for Trump. That is a fact. Having trouble with that? I suppose you are since it really taints Trump's presidency.

Facts are facts. Logic is a process. You don't understand the difference and that is a fact.

Rose42

Frosty wrote:

Nearly 3 million more people v**ed for Hillary than for Trump. That is a fact. Having trouble with that? I suppose you are since it really taints Trump's presidency.

Facts are facts. Logic is a process. You don't understand the difference and that is a fact.

I have a problem with it. She never should have been a candidate in the first place. If democrats had come up with somebody decent we might not have gotten into this mess.

Elaine2025 Loc: Seattle, Wa

Rose42 wrote:

This is the Attic. Running one's mouth is what happens here.

Agreed, but canadian mouths should be run to assist their own government with asinine comments, not disrespect our government or its leaders.

Frosty Loc: Minnesota

Rose42 wrote:

I have a problem with it. She never should have been a candidate in the first place. If democrats had come up with somebody decent we might not have gotten into this mess.

I agree, although I think she could have made an excellent president if her name was anything but Clinton. Republicans have an irrational hatred of anyone named Clinton. She was so maligned and h**ed by Republicans that she would never get anything accomplished.

Elaine2025 Loc: Seattle, Wa

Frosty wrote:

I agree, although I think she could have made an excellent president if her name was anything but Clinton. Republicans have an irrational hatred of anyone named Clinton. She was so maligned and h**ed by Republicans that she would never get anything accomplished.

Frosty, you see nothing wrong with what she has done? The emails, the uranium to Russia, the Clinton Foundation? That just names a couple of them, and you are fine with that? Her NAME is not the issue, her lies and criminal actions are the issue.

Rose42

Frosty wrote:

I agree, although I think she could have made an excellent president if her name was anything but Clinton. Republicans have an irrational hatred of anyone named Clinton. She was so maligned and h**ed by Republicans that she would never get anything accomplished.

I disagree that she'd have been good but agree that republicans would have fought her tooth and nail. Gone are the days of working together in the best interests of our country.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

Rose42 wrote:

I have a problem with it. She never should have been a candidate in the first place. If democrats had come up with somebody decent we might not have gotten into this mess.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

Elaine2025 wrote:

Frosty, you see nothing wrong with what she has done? The emails, the uranium to Russia, the Clinton Foundation? That just names a couple of them, and you are fine with that? Her NAME is not the issue, her lies and criminal actions are the issue.

Elaine, Get your head out of your butt. The "emails" were non-classified at the time she sent them, much like Ivanka's emails. The uranium deal was not under the control of Hillary Clinton and she couldn't have stopped it if she wanted to. The Clinton Foundation, unlike the Trump Foundation actually gave money to charity. The fact that it paid expenses for its officers is standard in the industry. Even the American Cancer Society uses more than 60% of its contributions to pay for salaries and expenses.
Your h**e for Hillary Clinton is blinding you from reality.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

Rose42 wrote:

I have a problem with it. She never should have been a candidate in the first place. If democrats had come up with somebody decent we might not have gotten into this mess.

Maybe you aren't saying what you would replace the two party system with, and how you propose to do it, because you have no idea. If so, that isn't a crime, and I'm not suggesting you hold your tongue. On the other hand, if you do have some ideas, what's wrong with sharing them?

Elaine2025 Loc: Seattle, Wa

Frank T wrote:

Elaine, Get your head out of your butt. The "... (show quote)

Frank, go check out what you said, It is false. James Comey stood there and told the world they were classifed when she sent and received them. Ivanka's were not. Period. The Clinton Foundation received 300 million dollars after Uranium one. Coincidence, I guess? Read below and you will see that less than 6 percent of the money goes to charity. SIX percent Frank, the hildabeast is really generous, isn't she.

https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-Clinton-Foundation-money-goes-to-real-and-actual-charities-that-are-not-controlled-by-the-Clintons

I have no hatred for the hildabeast, but I sure wouldn't want her to have her hands in my money. At best she is a criminal and he is a proven serial rapist. So, I guess you want a serial rapist stalking the halls of the white house?

Rose42

thom w wrote:

Maybe you aren't saying what you would replace the two party system with, and how you propose to do it, because you have no idea. If so, that isn't a crime, and I'm not suggesting you hold your tongue. On the other hand, if you do have some ideas, what's wrong with sharing them?

Are you addressing me? I'd like a third party at least. I thought I'd said that before. I'd also like to get rid of the whole system where we have so may primaries and they campaign for two years. Limit it to 8 weeks or so. That's plenty of time for candidates to speak their mind. Give everyone equal coverage on debates, no media freezeouts.

But most of all, I'd like v**ers to stop supporting the broken status quo and demand change.

cwp3420

Frosty wrote:

Nearly 3 million more people v**ed for Hillary than for Trump. That is a fact. Having trouble with that? I suppose you are since it really taints Trump's presidency.

Facts are facts. Logic is a process. You don't understand the difference and that is a fact.

I guess you don't understand the e*******l college system in the U.S. Look it up on Wikipedia, since that's your choice of news for you. I'll give you a hint. The popular v**e doesn't count. Educate yourself, man.

letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.

Frosty wrote:

Carl, as suspected. No evidence. No proof. Just ho... (show quote)

Hillary is still a public figure and the libel laws are very lax regarding her.

Comey gave us all the proof we need to know that she broke several laws but lacked intent. That my friend was not his job.

letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.

Frosty wrote:

I agree, although I think she could have made an excellent president if her name was anything but Clinton. Republicans have an irrational hatred of anyone named Clinton. She was so maligned and h**ed by Republicans that she would never get anything accomplished.

I disagree with you. She had already proved not worthy of trust by many. Trump also had many faults but his message was clear, support America first, build the economy, and of course lock her up.