But what's the penalty for not feeding the troll? ;-)
Does Hillary have the moral obligation to release the transcripts of the Goldman Sach's speeches she was paid handsomely for? Her policies regarding the financial industry might be impacted by her relationship with them, is it the right thing to do for her to disclose that for the sake of transparency?
If he's given any that are relevant to governing the country (lest we forget bank regulation was one of her talking points this debate) then I'm all for it, hold his feet to the fire too. Private event she's given a speech at is generously glossing it over. Over future president was paid several times the annual income for most family's for giving a 20 minute speech to the very people she is saying need regulating, I'd be curious what she had to say.
Clinton is involved in so many problematic things. Take the Rose Law firm for example. She claimed she could not remember anything at trial and then at the white house a box of files that were missing suddenly showed up. Just the fact that she is a lawyer makes me not want to vote for her. She is also telling lies about her health. I think she has parkinson's disease and is lying about it. My wife has parkinson's, has problems walking and sometimes shakes when she does not take her medication on time. It is questionable that she will serve 8 years as president with a terminal illness. She is too ill to be president.
Show me where you have had similar concerns for trumps speeches any time in the past since he put his hat in the race and then you might appear as something other than a hack.
I'm not aware of any he's made, yet alone any that he's made that we can't get the transcripts for. I'm not saying that he hasn't, merely my own lack of knowledge on it. If he has made any, I'm all for seeing what he said. Here's my concern for it right here, any Trump speeches made I'm all for seeing the transcripts. That better?
More bullshit. It's not like we have hundreds of thousands of troops deployed on combat missions, is it?
I do love the way the right goes on about Hillary's speeches. It's pure innuendo, basically the assertion that there might be something there, because Hillary, kinda like Benghazi.
Meanwhile, what we know of Trump's business dealings is that they're coated in slime... as is his personal life.
He's a flaming asshole's flaming asshole, obviously, but his fans think he'd be great as the leader of the free world.
What competence has she shown? Supporting a disastrous war in Iraq, the price of which is still being paid by millions of innocent souls. Not the Clinton clan of course, raking it in with their "speeches", the 650 K starting job for Chelsea, Bill continuing his philandering, and so on.
Or Libya an example of her competence?
Or being an utterly unprincipled pawn for the powers that be?
Aleppo is the result of a Clinton directed act of regime change by the United States, in Syria.
After successfully orchestrating regime change in Libya.
Do not obfuscate and hide from the agenda that is being served. You cry the Iraq vote was a fluke... a "trust" issue with Bush, but then she carries on his legacy under Obama... she corrupted Obama's foreign policy and instead of owning up to it... you can't even face it. Such denial is a stark reminder of just how desperate people cling to their candidates even when they spent a previous generation railing against the very thing.
I suppose I was looking for an argument on the same level. An admission that you are voting for another Bush, and apparently today's excuse is it's okay without US troops massively involved. Does Aleppo look okay to you? I'm having trouble buying her innocence in all this, when it's a consistent pattern. I'm not looking for lies of innocence... but how someone lives with the truth and votes for her anyway. But I guess few people can provide such an answer.
Nationwide uprising
2011 March - Security forces shoot dead protestors in southern city of Deraa demanding release of political prisoners, triggering violent unrest that steadily spread nationwide over the following months.President Assad announces conciliatory measures, releasing dozens of political prisoners, dismissing government, lifting 48-year-old state of emergency.
2011 May - Army tanks enter Deraa, Banyas, Homs and suburbs of Damascus in an effort to crush anti-regime protests. US and European Union tighten sanctions. President Assad announces amnesty for political prisoners.
I'm curious what part of that timeline you're looking at.
Aleppo is the result of a Clinton directed act of regime change by the United States, in Syria.
After successfully orchestrating regime change in Libya.
Do not obfuscate and hide from the agenda that is being served. You cry the Iraq vote was a fluke... a "trust" issue with Bush, but then she carries on his legacy under Obama... she corrupted Obama's foreign policy and instead of owning up to it... you can't even face it. Such denial is a stark reminder of just how desperate people cling to their candidates even when they spent a previous generation railing against the very thing.
I suppose I was looking for an argument on the same level. An admission that you are voting for another Bush, and apparently today's excuse is it's okay without US troops massively involved. Does Aleppo look okay to you? I'm having trouble buying her innocence in all this, when it's a consistent pattern. I'm not looking for lies of innocence... but how someone lives with the truth and votes for her anyway. But I guess few people can provide such an answer.
We know this huh? Haven't seen either the speech transcripts nor the tax transcripts, but we know that one is just fine/nothing there and the other covered with dirt and slime?
I'm not voting for Clinton nor Trump and I'm all about grilling the hell out of both of them, let us see everything. But it's amazing the contortions some of you go through to support your candidate.
Oh sanctions equal regime change now?
Lol!
Please. As I've pointed out, the Clintons have paid 30% in federal income tax & donated another 10% to charity. Their released returns date back to 2000, at least.
Tax-wise, they're squeaky clean & apparently entirely happy to pay big taxes on big money.
If Trump's taxes look like the rest of his life he probably should have been in jail a long time ago.
Generating a stink over Hillary's speeches is just cover for that.
Here is the irony
The supposedly for the middle class, the "average person", Dem party candidate has got 152 million from super PACs - all the while condemning the influence of money on politics.
While the party of the elite candidate has got 15 million from super PACs - one tenth the amount.
The hypocrisy is astounding.
Also, not surprisingly, the question of super PACs was not raised in the debate. Beauty pageants are more important.
Here is the irony
The supposedly for the middle class, the "average person", Dem party candidate has got 152 million from super PACs - all the while condemning the influence of money on politics.
While the party of the elite candidate has got 15 million from super PACs - one tenth the amount.
The hypocrisy is astounding.
Also, not surprisingly, the question of super PACs was not raised in the debate. Beauty pageants are more important.
Gawd. It's not like Trump wouldn't take the money. It's just that nobody is giving him any.
ThisI don't think you know what the term "false equivalency" means then. If something or someone can't meet my minimum requirements then it's not really relevant how much less of the requirements one of them meets. You're the one trying to create an actual false equivalency by conflating "acceptable candidates" and "electable candidates." Just because you're falsely trying to turn this election into a binary choice doesn't mean it is. Gary Johnson is better option than either Trump or Clinton. I disagree almost 100% with everything she stands for but Jill Stein is a better option than Trump or Clinton. There is no argument, poll, endorsement, or anything else you could say or do that would lead me to vote for either Clinton or Trump and there's millions just like me. If that means that your preferred candidate loses then tough shit, next time select an acceptable candidate.