Where there's smoke is there fire?........

The former hrc staffer [Bryan Pagliano] that worked on her server has been granted immunity.....

     The FBI says that hrc may be questioned about the e-mail mess.....

     The hrc campaigned warned because Bubba went into a voting area to campaign during voting hours....

Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI)....was warned of an 'uncomfortable political life' in Congress because she had the audacity to support Bernie Sanders over hrc.....This Congresswomen is an Iraq War Veteran and she said in an interview that these warnings were made by many and that " I don't scare that easily"....Too bad this vet didn't punch their lights out....

     They really are trying to bring back their 'camelot' of the 90's.....

Yep, the Farm Animal machine is cranking up, we could soon have the most dishonest (even for a politician) President in history. I'm sure the DNC is squirming over whether their queen bee will get indicted prior to the election. Of course Obummer has squashed the State Dept to slow more email releases prior to the election. If she gets elected the idiots who vote for her get what they deserve....a lying, cheating Wall Street hugger who is only in it to make money later.

nochain wrote:

Yep, the Farm Animal machine is cranking up, we could soon have the most dishonest (even for a politician) President in history. I'm sure the DNC is squirming over whether their queen bee will get indicted prior to the election. Of course Obummer has squashed the State Dept to slow more email releases prior to the election. If she gets elected the idiots who vote for her get what they deserve....a lying, cheating Wall Street hugger who is only in it to make money later.

She is a piece of....................work [yeah ok] ain't she?........And there are democrats that still defend and support her...but when you lie about lying whatta ya expect....

Sorry to disappoint you all, but here's an article from this morning's Washington Post about what Pagliano has told the FBI.
There's no "there" there.

I hate it that people are still voting for Hillary ( I did this morning) in spite of how badly you guys want there to be a arrest or a scandal, but that's just the way it goes.

The conspiracy people may just have to make up something else they think the Clintons may need to go to jail for. There's been about 50 of those things so far. It must be a tough job just sitting around thinking this stuff up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/04/clinton-emails-continue-to-be-non-scandal-disappointing-republicans/

Eddard wrote:

Sorry to disappoint you all, but here's an article from this morning's Washington Post about what Pagliano has told the FBI.
There's no "there" there.

I hate it that people are still voting for Hillary ( I did this morning) in spite of how badly you guys want there to be a arrest or a scandal, but that's just the way it goes.

The conspiracy people may just have to make up something else they think the Clintons may need to go to jail for. There's been about 50 of those things so far. It must be a tough job just sitting around thinking this stuff up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/04/clinton-emails-continue-to-be-non-scandal-disappointing-republicans/

Actually the article doesn't say everything Pagliani told the FBI except that he set up the server and "found no evidence" of hacking but turned over the security logs and is now working with the FBI.

I've said this before - it makes no difference if she knowingly broke laws or inadvertently exposed national security information. That fact shows she isn't to be trusted (as a majority of Americans have already said).

I'm sure foreign heads of State hope she is elected, they can have another term of a light weight, brain dead idiot in charge here.

And libertards are cool with that. Amazing.

nochain wrote:

Eddard wrote:

Sorry to disappoint you all, but here's an article from this morning's Washington Post about what Pagliano has told the FBI.
There's no "there" there.

I hate it that people are still voting for Hillary ( I did this morning) in spite of how badly you guys want there to be a arrest or a scandal, but that's just the way it goes.

The conspiracy people may just have to make up something else they think the Clintons may need to go to jail for. There's been about 50 of those things so far. It must be a tough job just sitting around thinking this stuff up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/04/clinton-emails-continue-to-be-non-scandal-disappointing-republicans/

Actually the article doesn't say everything Pagliani told the FBI except that he set up the server and "found no evidence" of hacking but turned over the security logs and is now working with the FBI.

I've said this before - it makes no difference if she knowingly broke laws or inadvertently exposed national security information. That fact shows she isn't to be trusted (as a majority of Americans have already said).

I'm sure foreign heads of State hope she is elected, they can have another term of a light weight, brain dead idiot in charge here.

And libertards are cool with that. Amazing.

When a blog is posted as factual information there is a political agenda that is being promoted....in this case it's liberal spin that hrc did nothing wrong and there's no sandal which disappoints republicans....Yesterday she again repeated ...I sent nothing marked classified....You are correct....it's the trust issue and if she as the top of the state department food chain is so incompetent that she can't recognize what information should/should not be sent on a private server then she truly is either completely stupid and/or so arrogant that rules/laws do not apply to her.....and yet there is a sense of pride some have for voting for her....

Where have the majority of Americans ever said that Hillary is untrustworthy?
Was it in a poll of 7 or 800 voters? That's not the "American People" speaking.

I think the only time Hillary Clinton was rejected nationally by the people was when she ran against Barack Obama. Even then, she was only rejected by the majority of Democratic primary voters. She didn't get a chance to offer herself as a candidate against John McCain and Sarah Palin. I think she'd have beaten them just like Barack Obama did.

You're right. I don't have a bit of shame voting for the most qualified person in the race to become President.

The same pole that found a lot smaller percentage of the voters that trust her.. LOL

It's still just a poll, isn't it?

I think voters will decide in the fall, if Bernie doesn't win in the primaries. Looks like he's doing well in Michigan tonight.

Jake92 wrote:

The same pole that found a lot smaller percentage of the voters that trust her..  LOL

And that's how/why Bernie got a victory in Michigan.....that's not a good sign for hrc....The exit polls there had honesty/trustworthy at the top of their reasons for voting for the socialist...

Well, out of over a million voters only 19 thousand must have trusted Bernie more than Hillary. Or those could have just been college students who are extremely liberal anyway.

Truth is, there was low voter turnout in Michigan and it was an open primary. I think open primaries should be illegal. No one who is too scared to register as a Democrat or a Republican should be able to choose that party's candidate.

I suppose you'd rather have a socialist as POTUS then? Is that right?
Because you believe the polls so you have to believe whoever the Democrat is, they are favored to win over the Donald.

Eddard wrote:

Well, out of over a million voters only 19 thousand must have trusted Bernie more than Hillary. Or those could have just been college students who are extremely liberal anyway.

Truth is, there was low voter turnout in Michigan and it was an open primary. I think open primaries should be illegal. No one who is too scared to register as a Democrat or a Republican should be able to choose that party's candidate.

I suppose you'd rather have a socialist as POTUS then? Is that right?
Because you believe the polls so you have to believe whoever the Democrat is, they are favored to win over the Donald.

I disagree, with closed primary's Independents have no say in who ends up in the final. And that's just what politicians want, they are afraid of Independents. Unwillingness to identify as a D or R is not being "scared", it's generally an indication that the person is capable of selecting candidates from either party.

nochain wrote:

Eddard wrote:

Well, out of over a million voters only 19 thousand must have trusted Bernie more than Hillary. Or those could have just been college students who are extremely liberal anyway.

Truth is, there was low voter turnout in Michigan and it was an open primary. I think open primaries should be illegal. No one who is too scared to register as a Democrat or a Republican should be able to choose that party's candidate.

I suppose you'd rather have a socialist as POTUS then? Is that right?
Because you believe the polls so you have to believe whoever the Democrat is, they are favored to win over the Donald.

I disagree, with closed primary's Independents have no say in who ends up in the final. And that's just what politicians want, they are afraid of Independents. Unwillingness to identify as a D or R is not being "scared", it's generally an indication that the person is capable of selecting candidates from either party.

Funny that from the party that lectures on 'inclusiveness' and the Big Tent, everyone is welcome are so worried about the independent voters....'Open primaries should be illegal'...WOW!...The democrats have their primaries stacked so heavily for hrc why even go through the process?....A candidate wins and receives less delegates?...Superdelegates are already in the corner of hrc before the first vote is cast?...Inclusive?....Again...to have democrats define fairness is laughable!
'Nochain' you are correct and independents or those that register as such should be allowed to participate in primary voting for the candidate of their choice no matter the party affiliation...If this were the case I'd immediately register as an independent....wouldn't change my vote this time because when democrats offer a socialist...and a criminal/untrustworthy socialist there's really not much for a choice...well except for the sheep...

mediawatcher wrote:

nochain wrote:

Eddard wrote:

Well, out of over a million voters only 19 thousand must have trusted Bernie more than Hillary. Or those could have just been college students who are extremely liberal anyway.

Truth is, there was low voter turnout in Michigan and it was an open primary. I think open primaries should be illegal. No one who is too scared to register as a Democrat or a Republican should be able to choose that party's candidate.

I suppose you'd rather have a socialist as POTUS then? Is that right?
Because you believe the polls so you have to believe whoever the Democrat is, they are favored to win over the Donald.

I disagree, with closed primary's Independents have no say in who ends up in the final. And that's just what politicians want, they are afraid of Independents. Unwillingness to identify as a D or R is not being "scared", it's generally an indication that the person is capable of selecting candidates from either party.

   Funny that from the party that lectures on 'inclusiveness' and the Big Tent, everyone is welcome are so worried about the independent voters....'Open primaries should be illegal'...WOW!...The democrats have their primaries stacked so heavily for hrc why even go through the process?....A candidate wins and receives less delegates?...Superdelegates are already in the corner of hrc before the first vote is cast?...Inclusive?....Again...to have democrats define fairness is laughable!
   'Nochain' you are correct and independents or those that register as such should be allowed to participate in primary voting for the candidate of their choice no matter the party affiliation...If this were the case I'd immediately register as an independent....wouldn't change my vote this time because when democrats offer a socialist...and a criminal/untrustworthy socialist there's really not much for a choice...well except for the sheep...

A criminal/untrustworthy socialist? C'mon, now. The shit is getting deep. Sanders is a choirboy when compared to Trump.

My feeling is that if you ain't willing to join a club then you don't get any say in who the leader of that club is. I was an independent at one time and I became a Dem because I couldn't vote  in the primaries for anybody. I don't resent that, I understand exactly why the rule exists.

If I was an independent and we had an open primary in Florida, I'd have voted for Trump last Saturday. Why? Because he's the least likely candidate to beat either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. That's where a lot of voters for Trump in Michigan came from, BTW. They polled people before they entered the booths and found out that non Republicans were voting for Trump just because they hoped he'd lose to Clinton or Sanders.

When a political party puts so much effort into a primary election, and when volunteers get out and phone people and walk the streets to support their candidate, why should anybody that isn't part of their party, or even worse, a member of another party, be allowed to sabotage all that they've worked for?

They should not. That's the answer.
If you've ever worked for a candidate, I think you would agree with me.

I'm pretty sure a lot of Cruz and Rubio volunteers would agree with me too.

Eric wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

nochain wrote:

Eddard wrote:

Well, out of over a million voters only 19 thousand must have trusted Bernie more than Hillary. Or those could have just been college students who are extremely liberal anyway.

Truth is, there was low voter turnout in Michigan and it was an open primary. I think open primaries should be illegal. No one who is too scared to register as a Democrat or a Republican should be able to choose that party's candidate.

I suppose you'd rather have a socialist as POTUS then? Is that right?
Because you believe the polls so you have to believe whoever the Democrat is, they are favored to win over the Donald.

I disagree, with closed primary's Independents have no say in who ends up in the final. And that's just what politicians want, they are afraid of Independents. Unwillingness to identify as a D or R is not being "scared", it's generally an indication that the person is capable of selecting candidates from either party.

   Funny that from the party that lectures on 'inclusiveness' and the Big Tent, everyone is welcome are so worried about the independent voters....'Open primaries should be illegal'...WOW!...The democrats have their primaries stacked so heavily for hrc why even go through the process?....A candidate wins and receives less delegates?...Superdelegates are already in the corner of hrc before the first vote is cast?...Inclusive?....Again...to have democrats define fairness is laughable!
   'Nochain' you are correct and independents or those that register as such should be allowed to participate in primary voting for the candidate of their choice no matter the party affiliation...If this were the case I'd immediately register as an independent....wouldn't change my vote this time because when democrats offer a socialist...and a criminal/untrustworthy socialist there's really not much for a choice...well except for the sheep...

A criminal/untrustworthy socialist?  C'mon, now.  The shit is getting deep.  Sanders is a choirboy when compared to Trump.

'criminal/untrustworthy socialist' certainly/obviously wasn't in reference to 'the bern'.....just didn't want to call her the 'farmanimal'...that would slander farmanimals.....

With the attitude of animosity against Independents I have to assume liberals wouldn't want any of those nasty illegal immigrants being granted amnesty and allowed to vote either. After all, they probably haven't been out knocking on doors either.

I never realized you had to earn the right to vote in this country by being a party hack.

nochain wrote:

With the attitude of animosity against Independents I have to assume liberals wouldn't want any of those nasty illegal immigrants being granted amnesty and allowed to vote either. After all, they probably haven't been out knocking on doors either.

I never realized you had to earn the right to vote in this country by being a party hack.

Liberals love everyone as long as you agree with them....disagree or have an original opinion/thought then it becomes unacceptable....They push for 'illegals' to be allowed to vote but not independent Americans....great point! May be based on which group they can control....It's a sad day when 'illegals' have more of a status then those actually born here---wonder why people are pissed?....

You aren't voting for President nochain. You don't have to earn the right to vote for President, even though I think a Lot of Republicans have tried to limit voting by a lot of pretty suspicious methods.

The voting is for a party candidate. If you're not in that party, you shouldn't get to choose their candidate.
It's the same as if you were not a citizen of the US, you just lived here, you don't get to vote for the President, do you?

Sign up, declare what you believe, or go sit on the sidelines and shut up is what I say.

I'm very glad we have closed primaries in Florida and in many other states.

BTW, poor Republicans. They even call openly for voters to create mischief in their primaries.

Marco Rubio's people are asking for voters in Ohio to vote for John Kasich. Rubio knows he'll be on the bottom of the list when the Ohio votes come in, and all he wants is for the state not to go to Trump.
Sounds a lot like some of the stuff in Game of Cards to me.

Also sounds EXTREMELY DESPERATE. So sad.