Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Coach is Back! on March 10, 2015, 12:50:40 PM
-
Well excuse the f^&k out of me. What she's really saying is that she was too lazy.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/03/10/clinton-i-opted-for-convenience-only-having-private-email-account/
-
Isnt that cute of her.
F this nasty BIIAATTCCHHHHH lying pos
-
Oh well that settles that then...nothing more to see here. Only half her emails were work related. The other 50K were printed off and handed over to the House select commision.....you know cause a paper copy you can't easily search is better then an electronic copy that you can.
DEFEND THIS LIBS...go ahead!!!!
-
Nobody have to defend anything. She's your next president as the Party of Clinically Stupid don't have the intelligence to take this opportunity and run with it. Another lame duck candidate working screaming halfwits into a frenzy by declaring they have 'God on their side and taking the White House back!'.
She's not worried :-\
-
all legal get over it lol
-
all legal get over it lol
Sure.
-
all legal get over it lol
-
Nobody have to defend anything. She's your next president as the Party of Clinically Stupid don't have the intelligence to take this opportunity and run with it. Another lame duck candidate working screaming halfwits into a frenzy by declaring they have 'God on their side and taking the White House back!'.
She's not worried :-\
Not if Gowdy has his way. He'll tear her a new one. This has Bengazi all over it.
-
bengazi the fake scandal that keeps giving ;D
-
Not if Gowdy has his way. He'll tear her a new one. This has Bengazi all over it.
She's not worried Joe. The Stupid Party just don't have the candidates to take her on. They need to get their heads of out their ass and serve up a moderate. The era of insane bible thumpers are over. You're not going to win that way.
-
And Joe, I'll preface this by saying, I'm NOT American, but I do recognize that America needs a competent two party system to keep power in check. The Democrats are becoming very powerful and winning elections (in theory) a year in advance. That's NOT good. Vote for a moderate. It'll help your case.
-
She's not worried Joe. The Stupid Party just don't have the candidates to take her on. They need to get their heads of out their ass and serve up a moderate. The era of insane bible thumpers are over. You're not going to win that way.
Um.....when did the Repubs run a bible thumper.....yeah you not being an American is painfully obvious. Neither Romney nor McCain were thumpers and they both lost. The party isn't coming out for Jed. He has money and backers but he isn't going to get out of the primary season. He isn't exciting and he's Hil with a dick on most issues.
-
http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-it-would-have-been-better-if-i-used-official-email-2015-3
::)
-
She's not worried Joe. The Stupid Party just don't have the candidates to take her on. They need to get their heads of out their ass and serve up a moderate. The era of insane bible thumpers are over. You're not going to win that way.
Pretty simple. If this country should want to get back on track, the party of the libs needs to end. They literally lie, cheat and steal they're way in but again, just because you can win doesn't mean they can do the job...clearly. Clinton has NOTHING to run on except her name and she's a female..THAT'S IT!.
Straw, lurker, blacken, you, andrea, etc cannot give ONE coherent reason why she should be elected.
-
Pretty simple. If this country should want to get back on track, the party of the libs needs to end. They literally lie, cheat and steal they're way in but again, just because you can win doesn't mean they can do the job...clearly. Clinton has NOTHING to run on except her name and she's a female..THAT'S IT!.
Straw, lurker, blacken, you, andrea, etc cannot give ONE coherent reason why she should be elected.
she will be because it's almost a guarantee the repubs are going to run a loser,and that's the one reason
-
Well excuse the f^&k out of me. What she's really saying is that she was too lazy.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/03/10/clinton-i-opted-for-convenience-only-having-private-email-account/
So did Colin Powell and over previous Secretary of State officials.....nothing to see
-
she will be because it's almost a guarantee the repubs are going to run a loser,and that's the one reason
This is why I believe liberals hate America. They would rather vote someone in based on popularity rather than policy. You absolutely have to know that liberal policies are 9/10 failures. Obama didn't win on policy, Clinton won't win on policy.
-
So did Colin Powell and over previous Secretary of State officials.....nothing to see
I don't give a fuck about Powell. He turned out to be a turncoat.
-
This is why I believe liberals hate America. They would rather vote someone in based on popularity rather than policy. You absolutely have to know that liberal policies are 9/10 failures. Obama didn't win on policy, Clinton won't win on policy.
Monday, 10 October 2011 16:23
Print PDF
.
Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.
All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.
Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.
Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn’t think he should loose his home because of his temporary misfortune.
Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.
Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.
Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republican’s would still be sitting in the dark)
He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.
He turns on a radio talk show, the host’s keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn’t tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day) Joe agrees, “We don’t need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I’m a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have”.
-
Never seen such a brutal knockout on these forums. Fucking ouch. No recovery for Joe. None possible.
-
Strange ... two weeks in an interview she announced that she use both IPhone and blackberry. This whole Hillary email thing is such bullshit right up there with fast and furious, IRS, Benghazi ... etc ... etc ...
-
What I don't get is that most jobs require you to set up a separate email account for your work. Before I retired, I had a work email and a personal email account each with different servers. Hillary's work email should have been a .gov account and not a .comcast.net, or what have you account. As for the two devices excuse, what a laugh. You can run various email accounts on the same device.
She's either incredibly stupid when it comes to technology and so are her advisers or they think the rest of us are just too dumb to see though this idiotic excuse.
Maybe it is time for you to retire from politics Hillary.
-
Breitbart London
Breitbart Texas
Breitbart California
AP Fact-Check: Hillary’s Email Excuses Don’t Hold Water
2124
7
444
AP Photo/Seth Wenig
AP Photo/Seth Wenig
by Breitbart News10 Mar 2015564
WASHINGTON (AP) — How Hillary Rodham Clinton’s statements about her exclusive use of private email instead of a government account as secretary of state compare with the known facts:
CLINTON: “Others had done it.”
THE FACTS: Although email practices varied among her predecessors, Clinton is the only secretary of state known to have conducted all official unclassified government business on a private email address. Years earlier, when emailing was not the ubiquitous practice it is now among high officials, Colin Powell used both a government and a private account. It’s a striking departure from the norm for top officials to rely exclusively on private email for official business.
—
CLINTON: “I fully complied with every rule I was governed by.”
THE FACTS: At the very least, Clinton appears to have violated what the White House has called “very specific guidance” that officials should use government email to conduct business.
Clinton provided no details about whether she had initially consulted with the department or other government officials before using the private email system. She did not answer several questions about whether she sought any clearances before she began relying exclusively on private emails for government business.
Federal officials are allowed to communicate on private email and are generally allowed to conduct government business in those exchanges, but that ability is constrained, both by federal regulations and by their supervisors.
Federal law during Clinton’s tenure called for the archiving of such private email records when used for government work, but did not set out clear rules or punishments for violations until rules were tightened in November. In 2011, when Clinton was secretary, a cable from her office sent to all employees advised them to avoid conducting any official business on their private email accounts because of targeting by unspecified “online adversaries.”
—
CLINTON: “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.”
THE FACTS: The assertion fits with the facts as known but skirts the issue of exchanging information in a private account that, while falling below the level of classified, is still sensitive.
The State Department and other national security agencies have specified rules for the handling of such sensitive material, which could affect national security, diplomatic and privacy concerns, and may include material such as personnel, medical and law enforcement data. In reviewing the 30,000 emails she turned over to the State Department, officials are looking for any security lapses concerning sensitive but unclassified material that may have been disclosed.
—
CLINTON: “It had numerous safeguards. It was on property guarded by the Secret Service. And there were no security breaches.”
THE FACTS: While Clinton’s server was physically guarded by the Secret Service, she provided no evidence it hadn’t been compromised by hackers or foreign adversaries. She also didn’t detail who administered the email system, if it received appropriate software security updates, or if it was monitored routinely for unauthorized access.
Clinton also didn’t answer whether the homebrew computer system on her property had the same level of safeguards provided at professional data facilities, such as regulated temperatures, offsite backups, generators in case of power outages and fire-suppression systems. It was unclear what, if any, encryption software Clinton’s server may have used to communicate with U.S. government email accounts.
Recent high-profile breaches, including at Sony Pictures Entertainment, have raised scrutiny on how well corporations and private individuals protect their computer networks from attack.
—
CLINTON: “When I got to work as secretary of state, I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two. Looking back, it would’ve been better if I’d simply used a second email account and carried a second phone, but at the time, this didn’t seem like an issue.”
THE FACTS: If multiple devices were an inconvenience in the past, they may be something of an obsession now. Clinton told an event in California’s Silicon Valley last month that she has an iPad, a mini-iPad, an iPhone and a BlackBerry. “I’m like two steps short of a hoarder,” she said. She suggested she started out in Washington with a BlackBerry but her devices grew in number.
Smartphones were capable of multiple emails when she became secretary; it’s not clear whether the particular phone she used then was permitted to do so under State Department rules.
Read More Stories About:
Big Journalism, 2016 Presidential Race, Hillary Clinton
-
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Associated Press filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the State Department to force the release of email correspondence and government documents from Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.
The legal action comes after repeated requests filed under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act have gone unfulfilled. They include one request AP made five years ago and others pending since the summer of 2013.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, comes a day after Clinton broke her silence about her use of a private email account while secretary of state. The FOIA requests and lawsuit seek materials related to her public and private calendars, correspondence involving longtime aides likely to play key roles in her expected campaign for president, and Clinton-related emails about the Osama bin Laden raid and National Security Agency surveillance practices.
“After careful deliberation and exhausting our other options, The Associated Press is taking the necessary legal steps to gain access to these important documents, which will shed light on actions by the State Department and former Secretary Clinton, a presumptive 2016 presidential candidate, during some of the most significant issues of our time,” said Karen Kaiser, AP’s general counsel.
“The press is a proxy for the people, and AP will continue its pursuit of vital information that’s in the public interest through this action and future open records requests,” she said.
State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach declined to comment. He had previously cited the department’s heavy annual load of FOIA requests — 19,000 last year — in saying that the department “does its best to meet its FOIA responsibilities.” He said the department takes requests “first in, first out,” but noted that timing depends on “the complexity of the request.”
Michael Oreskes, a senior managing editor at AP, said the news agency was planning to file additional requests under FOIA following the disclosure last week that Clinton used a private email account run on a server on her property outside New York while working at the State Department.
Clinton on Tuesday said she sent and received about 60,000 emails from her personal email address in her four years as President Barack Obama’s secretary of state. She said roughly half were work-related, which she turned over to the State Department, while deleting tens of thousands more that were personal in nature.
The department says it will take several months to review the material Clinton turned over last year. Once the review is complete, the department said, the emails will be posted online.
The AP had sought Clinton-related correspondence before her use of a personal email account was publicly known, although Wednesday’s court filing alleges that the State Department is responsible for including emails from that account in any public records request.
“State’s failure to ensure that Secretary Clinton’s governmental emails were retained and preserved by the agency, and its failure timely to seek out and search those emails in response to AP’s requests, indicate at the very least that State has not engaged in the diligent, good-faith search that FOIA requires,” says AP’s legal filing.
Specifically, AP is seeking copies of Clinton’s full schedules and calendars from her four years as secretary of state; documents related to her department’s decision to grant a special position to longtime aide Huma Abedin; related correspondence from longtime advisers Philippe Reines and Cheryl Mills, who, like Abedin, are likely to play central roles in a Clinton presidential campaign; documents related to Clinton’s and the agency’s roles in the Osama bin Laden raid and National Security Agency surveillance practices; and documents related to her role overseeing a major Defense Department contractor.
The AP made most of its requests in the summer of 2013, although one was filed in March 2010. AP is also seeking attorney’s fees related to the lawsuit.
Other organizations have also sued the State Department recently after lengthy delays responding to public record requests.
In December, the conservative political advocacy group Citizens United filed suit sued the State Department for failing to disclose flight records showing who accompanied Clinton on overseas trips. Last week, the National Security Archive, an organization that gathers declassified government records, filed a lawsuit after waiting more than seven years for the State Department to release of details of former secretary of state Henry Kissinger’s telephone conversations.
Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, predicted the State Department would speed up its review facing legal action, particularly given that Clinton has said that her email correspondence doesn’t include classified material.
“When the government is under a court deadline, or really wants to review, they can whip through thousands of pages in a matter of weeks, which they should do here,” Blanton said.
The State Department generally takes about 450 days to turn over records it considers to be part of complex requests under the Freedom of Information Act. That is seven times longer than the Justice Department and CIA, and 30 times longer than the Treasury Department.
An inspector general’s report in 2012 criticized the State Department’s practices as “inefficient and ineffective,” citing a heavy workload, small staff and interagency problems.
___
Follow Steve Peoples on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/sppeoples
-
oy...
you sheeple... dont you realize NOTHING matters???
it WILL be hill vs jeb and there isnt a damn thing you can do about it
-
oy...
you sheeple... dont you realize NOTHING matters???
it WILL be hill vs jeb and there isnt a damn thing you can do about it
your right there ;D
-
3 troubling theories about what could have been going on inside Hillary's emails
Colin Campbell
34 minutes ago
93
facebook
linkedin
twitter
email
print
AP354487645528 (1)AP/Richard DrewHillary Clinton answers questions at a news conference at the United Nations.
See Also
Someone inside the White House just gave Hillary Clinton's media strategy a brutal review
Why did Hillary Clinton delete about 30,000 emails?
Hillary Clinton: 'It would have been better' if I used official email
Hillary Clinton's Tuesday press conference did little to quell concerns about her exclusive use of personal emails as secretary of state
Clinton, the Democratic front-runner for president in 2016, repeatedly insisted she elected not to use government email out of "convenience." At the same time, she said she deleted about 30,000 "private, personal" emails that her lawyer deemed not relevant to her government position.
She described the tens of thousands of deleted messages as "emails about planning Chelsea's wedding or my mother's funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends, as well as yoga routines, family vacations."
But many substantive questions remain about Clinton's email use and conduct after she left the administration, according to Republicans, editorial boards, and others.
Poor security harming National Security
Many experts said Clinton's personal email server was less secure than an official government one. Accordingly, they argue, Clinton could have left classified material vulnerable to hackers looking to undermine the White House or obtain crucial national security information.
Clinton dismissed these concerns during her press conference. She said she used a secure server set up for her husband, former President Bill Clinton, and it was guarded by the Secret Service. She said there was no evidence of a security breach. And Clinton claimed she never used her email to send classified material in the first place.
But those statements didn't satisfy a number of experts and critics.
“To say it wasn’t compromised is to say, ‘I don’t know it was compromised," Stewart Baker, who served as General Counsel to the National Security Agency (NSA) under George W. Bush, told Politico. “It would be pretty easy for a nation-state to compromise that account, and pretty easy to hide the fact that they had compromised that account.”
hillary clintonREUTERS/Mike Segar Clinton speaks during a news conference at the United Nations headquarters in New York March 10, 2015.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), a likely 2016 presidential candidate, scoffed at Clinton's claims during a Fox News interview Tuesday night. Paul said he would "guarantee" that sensitive material ended up in Clinton's inbox.
"I don't think convenience should trump national security," Paul said. "Even her conversations about things could be classified. She wants us to believe, 'Well, I didn't transmit classified documents.' But I guarantee that if you [file] a Freedom of Information Act and you want to know about Hillary Clinton's or the secretary of state's conversations with the president, my guess is you'll get back a notice saying it's classified."
The Washington Post's editorial board echoed this sentiment.
"Clinton said she did not discuss classified material in e-mail, but surely her days and messages were taken up with 'sensitive but unclassified' matters that would be of interest to snoopers," the paper opined Tuesday. "She didn’t address that security issue, nor did she say anything about whether the State Department had security concerns about her private arrangement."
The New York Times reported Wednesday that security and government experts remain skeptical of Clinton's claim about classified information. A former senior State Department estimated as much as 50% of Clinton's daily workload would have been on classified material.
"I would assume that more than 50 percent of what the secretary of state dealt with was classified," the anonymous official said of Clinton. "Was every single email of the secretary of state completely unclassified? Maybe, but it’s hard to imagine."
Hidden info about the deadly Benghazi attack
AP300273704997AP/Ibrahim AlaguriGlass, debris and overturned furniture are strewn inside a room in the gutted US consulate after the Benghazi attack.
Perhaps there's no greater point of controversy during Clinton's tenure as secretary of state than the 2012 attack on a diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya. Four Americans died in the attack, including US Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
Partially because the federal government abruptly shifted its narrative of the incident — from a spontaneous protest to a planned terrorist attack — a number of conspiracy theories have emerged. Many people believe the Obama administration knowingly handed out false information or was involved in a cover-up of the attack.
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-South Carolina), who is leading the House's Benghazi investigation, told Fox News on Tuesday that he was completely unsatisfied with Clinton's press conference and will call her before his committee to answer additional questions.
"I have no interest in her yoga routine. Trust me, I have no interest in that," Gowdy said. "But I have every interest in public record, whether it's related to Libya or not. And I no interest in her personal attorney determining what is a public record and what is not a public record. That should be done by a neutral, detached person."
The House Intelligence Committee concluded last year that there was no evidence of "deliberate wrongdoing" on the part of the Obama administration. However, questions remain about the CIA's role at the Benghazi site and how the State Department contributed.
"The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation, according to officials briefed on the intelligence," The Wall Street Journal reported at the time. "Of the more than 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the deadly assault, only seven worked for the State Department. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, these officials said."
'Follow the foundation money'
GettyImages_456049370Mic hael Loccisano/GettyHillary Clinton speaking at her foundation's annual meeting at the Sheraton New York Hotel & Towers on September 24, 2014 in New York City.
National Journal columnist Ron Fournier speculated this week that Clinton's "private" email stash could contain messages relating to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, which has reportedly collected $2 billion from sources that include oppressive foreign governments and corporations.
"The emails are a related but secondary scandal," a Clinton source told Fournier. "Follow the foundation money."
While she served as secretary of state, the Clinton foundation struck a deal with the White House to limit foreign contributions to the organization. However, the foundation broke that agreement in 2010 when it accepted $500,000 from Algeria, which was actively lobbying the State Department over its human rights issues at the time.
After Clinton left the State Department in 2013 and began preparing for a presidential campaign, the foundation raised eyebrows by accepting contributions that would have been forbidden when she was at the State Department.
The Canadian government agency lobbying for the construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the foundation in 2014. Clinton says she's undecided on the measure, which is only being blocked by the current president's veto pin. Fournier suggested this kind of apparent conflict of interest could be what Clinton is interested in shielding from public disclosure.
"Is the foundation clean? Is it corrupt? Or is the truth in the muddy middle, where we so often find the Clintons? Due to the fact that Hillary Clinton chose to skirt federal regulations and house her State Department emails on an off-the-books server, even the most loyal Democrat can't honestly answer those questions," Fournier said. "Could that be why she hasn't coughed up the server?"
Michael B. Kelley contributed to this report.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/3-troubling-hillarys-email-theories-2015-3#ixzz3U6oCo5fl
-
oy...
you sheeple... dont you realize NOTHING matters???
it WILL be hill vs jeb and there isnt a damn thing you can do about it
Too bad to, because both of them should retire from politics. Where are all the younger folks who should be stepping up to the plate?
-
Too bad to, because both of them should retire from politics. Where are all the younger folks who should be stepping up to the plate?
Shut out of the process
-
Shut out of the process
Perhaps in some cases. Big business supports candidates campaigns financially. Is big business afraid to take a risk? It literally takes millions of dollars for a presidential candidate to get elected these days. There are inherent problems with this. Supposedly Democrats rely on the populace support, but we all know that is never going to be enough to fund a campaign. Republicans supposedly rely on corporate financial support and yet if they don't get the votes from the people they can't win either.
It feels like our system is stuck in a very bad place. The same folks keep getting reelected because they are known factors, both because of how they've voted on issues which interest big money and because they have also managed to become media darlings enough to win at the poles.
I'd be all in for term limits and other means of reducing the number of career politicians. My fear is we'd end up having no one but losers and whack jobs willing to run for office. Not that Hilary's comments to the press regarding her email snafu doesn't put her right up there with some other idiot politicians, because she certainly has gone down several notches in my book.
It's a scary business. I have no idea who I would vote for for President in the next election. It looks like it is going to be another best of the worst kind of choice. Where the hell are the winners and leaders?
-
On the stage at the Arnold. ;D
Perhaps in some cases. Big business supports candidates campaigns financially. Is big business afraid to take a risk? It literally takes millions of dollars for a presidential candidate to get elected these days. There are inherent problems with this. Supposedly Democrats rely on the populace support, but we all know that is never going to be enough to fund a campaign. Republicans supposedly rely on corporate financial support and yet if they don't get the votes from the people they can't win either.
It feels like our system is stuck in a very bad place. The same folks keep getting reelected because they are known factors, both because of how they've voted on issues which interest big money and because they have also managed to become media darlings enough to win at the poles.
I'd be all in for term limits and other means of reducing the number of career politicians. My fear is we'd end up having no one but losers and whack jobs willing to run for office. Not that Hilary's comments to the press regarding her email snafu doesn't put her right up there with some other idiot politicians, because she certainly has gone down several notches in my book.
It's a scary business. I have no idea who I would vote for for President in the next election. It looks like it is going to be another best of the worst kind of choice. Where the hell are the winners and leaders?
-
On the stage at the Arnold. ;D
Interesting analogy. I think you make a valid point in this comparison. It does not solve anything, but hey, who said we could fix this mess anyway?
-
Too bad to, because both of them should retire from politics. Where are all the younger folks who should be stepping up to the plate?
best part of the whole thing is that each party voter doesnt even like their candidate but WILL vote for their party because they hate the other guy/gal even more...LOL
I love "freedom of choice"..
go Merica' !