world

Trump warns Clinton to 'BE CAREFUL' in using the woman 'card'

81 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2015.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

81 Comments
Login to comment

“Be careful Hillary as you play the war on women or women being degraded card,” Trump said in a Twitter post on Wednesday. - article

WHY? Would there be a trademark violation the GOP would file?

Degrading women? That's a Republican thing, they invented it. Trump's is just the best at it.

6 ( +15 / -8 )

Wondering if kcjapan got any sleep last night waiting for his next baited hook.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have great respect for women.

Trump has been criticized for calling women fat pigs, dogs and slobs

US politics has hit a new low and is shaping up to go even lower. I know, I know Hillary Benghazi prove I'm a bigot rofl 2nd amendment Kenyan Muslim

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Chump only has the joker card to play.

6 ( +13 / -7 )

Q: How many Trump supporters does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: None. Trump supporters prefer to live in the dark.

7 ( +17 / -9 )

Trump wasn't the one that defended a pedophile rapist and then laughed at the victim. Or has a spouse connected with an infamous pedophile ring. So yes, Hillary should be very careful.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Trump is right! Hillary underpaid women. Trump is no dummy, he knows he can get her on this one. The Democrats seem to think he is a fool, he has maintained his lead, he has support from women, and with both the DNC and the GOP wanting him gone they haven't dug up any damaging dirt up on him yet.

Funny thing with Trump, Hillary attended his wedding, Trump supported her in the past, and Trump has voted Democrat in the past.

Those in the dark are the anti Trump. Look, learn and open those eyes!

-16 ( +8 / -23 )

Hillary needs to be careful how she interacts with Trump at this stage of the campaign. It's imperative that she help increase support for Trump so he wins the candidacy, that way she will win the presidency. Her mostly hands-off approach at the moment is the perfect tactic I think. She is hated on the right, so it's also not wise to attack non-Trump candidates either, lest support for the non-Trumps increase.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

I have great respect for women. BE CAREFUL!”

Trump has been criticized for calling women fat pigs, dogs and slobs

A man who has learned from both PT Barnum and Goebbels.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

....oh, and I should add Hillary used the "it's about time for a woman to be president" phrase at least once.

No, Hillary, Its about time for a competent president is more appropriate. Gender or race doesn't determine a competent president. It doesn't take a genius to see that.

Trump would eat Hillary up IF it would be him which I doubt dcog.

-20 ( +7 / -26 )

Gender or race doesn't determine a competent president.

Certainly true of white males recently. With the exception of Carter, maybe....

5 ( +8 / -4 )

Nobody can possibly think this is a great country with this guy leading one of our national parties. Nobody.

12 ( +16 / -4 )

The Democrats seem to think he is a fool,

That's because if it waddles like a duck, paddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck.

he has maintained his lead,

... in polls for the Republican nomination at an (sarcasm) overwhelming (/sarcasm) 35% of the Republicans who responded.The other 65% of the Republicans who responded? Ehh, they're not impressed with him.

he has support from women,

Based on my comment just above, we can assume that only 35% of Republican women support him.

and with both the DNC and the GOP wanting him gone they haven't dug up any damaging dirt up on him yet.

You "dig up dirt" when the opponent is trying to present themself as above reproach. Trump is making it too easy for the DNC by reminding the world of his flaws every time he opens his mouth. The DNC doesn't NEED to try and dig up dirt!

Funny thing with Trump, Hillary attended his wedding, Trump supported her in the past, and Trump has voted Democrat in the past.

So the point you're making is... Trump changed his mind since then? So what? We're talking about a raving lunatic so what he thought in the past bears only a peripheral relevance.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Trump as president would screw up America more than Bush ever did, hes about as diplomatic as a bull at a Rodeo

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Whoever is next has a monumental task to repair what Obama has and has not done.

Classifying Carter as one of the greats shows the narrow view of the left.

The one good point I like with Trump is his "restore American business" stance. The nation needs jobs. Exporting them was catastrophic as we see.

-13 ( +4 / -16 )

Exporting them was catastrophic as we see.

Do you think Trump will start having his various products made in the USA, or will he continue to have them made in China, Bangladesh, Mexico and other countries?

3 ( +6 / -4 )

why not? I have been Country of Orrigin conseus for 20 years or more. I'll buy USA, Japan and European products all day long and spend a bit more at it knowing the workers are making a living. Made in third world is profit for the business only. The workers are making peanuts, the retail/selling price is close to the industrialized nations prices.

Would Trump follow through with his promise? We'll never know. It won't be him.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

So what's new or different? Obama played the race card, Clinton plays the woman card. Criticize Obama, you are a racist. Criticize Clinton, you are "anti-woman."

-8 ( +3 / -10 )

@ A Realist....from the democratic point of view. Extremely shallow.

The GOP has a woman, a black man, and two Hispanics but when they insult them it's not racism. Extreemly shallow.

The certain democrat nominee lies to the public and all is good. Again, extremely shallow.

Who is in the bubble?

-7 ( +5 / -11 )

Clinton lies, Trump exaggerates. It seems will be stuck picking between the two so I know which of those I personally can accept. At least an exaggeration has some amount of truth in it. You just gotta take what is said and tone it down to get to the reality. A lie, it just leads you around in circles chasing your own tail. You will never find anything useful from it and often you find even more related lies.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

Obama played the race card

Obama has never played the race card, or at least not since he's been president. Is this another lie they are telling you in the bubble?

Clinton lies, Trump exaggerates.

Trump lies. Did you miss that whole thing where he lied about seeing tens of thousands of Muslims cheering the WTC collapse in New Jersey?

4 ( +8 / -5 )

It wasn't a lie because it has been confirmed to have happened by retired police officials who cannot be kept quiet by having their jobs threatened. But because he didn't actually see it with his own eyes -and- becauseit was tens (10-30) of people and not tens of thousands of people, that is an exaggeration. Not a lie, because it happened- point is still valid. Its just not enough people to blame the whole group, just a bunch of stupid individuals who should have been deported on the spot.

Hillary's Benghazi (didnt get any email from the ambassador but was proven she did) and didnt use private email server (also didn't have any classified material, oh wait well there was some), those are lies. Among many many others, too many to even list. #Notmiabuela

-7 ( +5 / -11 )

The GOP has a woman, a black man, and two Hispanics but when they insult them it's not racism. Extreemly shallow.

The certain democrat nominee lies to the public and all is good. Again, extremely shallow.

Who is in the bubble?

Umm, still you guys. I can't believe I have to explain this, but all criticism of Obama and Clinton is not racist or anti-women. People on the left criticize both all the time regarding policies. Their criticism usually has nothing to do with race or gender. But when you persistently demand a long-form birth certificate from a proven US citizen or make jokes about menstrual cycles, there's a chance you might be a bigot.

Talk about shallow... You don't even bother to differentiate different types of criticism.

4 ( +7 / -4 )

It wasn't a lie because it has been confirmed to have happened by retired police officials

How would retired police officers be able to confirm that he saw it on TV? Were they in his apartment on 9-11? I think not.

It's a lie because he's claiming that he saw something on tv that was never on tv. That's not an exaggeration, it's a straight up mistruth.

2 ( +5 / -4 )

There is no "War on Women." It is a media hype to get readers and viewers to watch. 99.9% of the jobs in the USA require the same salary for employees in a specified position. Fast food people, office workers, teachers, or garbage collector have unions or salary scales that are for the position, not the gender of the employee. Even if .1% disagreed with the salary, he or she could either take the company to court for discrimination (anyone remember that term?) for retroactive salary and punitive costs.

-6 ( +5 / -10 )

There is no war on women. That's as stupid as every "war on _____" that people try to hype. But font let that make you think there is no misogyny in business. It definitely exists.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

The retired police officers saw it in person with their own eyes as they patrolled these areas. They then told the 10-30 people celebrating it wasn't in their best interest of their personal safety to keep doing that so they dispersed. That Trump saw any of this himself is the exaggeration. But it isn't a lie, because what he described as happening actually happened. Just not in the manner or extent that he said it did. Thus, he "exaggerated".

-3 ( +5 / -7 )

Trump warns Clinton to 'BE CAREFUL' in using the woman 'card'

Because we all need lessons from the man who said, "blood coming out of her whatever" about a professional female journalist doing her job.

MarkG: and with both the DNC and the GOP wanting him gone they haven't dug up any damaging dirt up on him yet.

It's always nice to see what spin the bubble is making these days. Apparently they are presenting a narrative that Democrats are worried about Trump and are working hard to ruin his nomination. That would take a hell of a lot of work for the bubble to pull this off since we've already had a ton of reports come out saying Trump would be a horrible nominee in a general election. Yet here we are.

noriyosan73: There is no "War on Women."

When you tell women they cannot have abortions or that you will close down all of Planned Parenthood, women are going to think you aren't listening to their concerns. That's what the GOP does. Maybe you agree or disagree with those policies but obviously the safety and welfare of women overall isn't the driving force. They lose access to obtainable healthcare all because of religion, or misplaced outrage, or just to score political points. That tends to piss them off.

Blacklabel: It wasn't a lie because it has been confirmed to have happened by retired police officials who cannot be kept quiet by having their jobs threatened.

This is how I imagine every Trump supporter. And the Republicans have a lot of them.

3 ( +6 / -4 )

I stand corrected, an exaggeration is also a lie according to the dictionary:

Exaggeration: verb (used with object), exaggerated, exaggerating.

to magnify beyond the limits of truth; overstate; represent disproportionately:

If it is beyond the limits of truth, that means "lie". But still to me exaggerating doesn't bother me as bad as something that has no truth to it at all.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

But because he didn't actually see it with his own eyes -and- becauseit was tens (10-30) of people and not tens of thousands of people, that is an exaggeration. Not a lie, because it happened- point is still valid.

Well if this is true, his exaggeration is as bad as lying. It's not even worth mentioning the true story of a couple dozen idiots. Turning it into thousands is a lie and a dangerous one that incites people who almost certainly will not bother look up the truth.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Since Nader is not in the running, Trump is my man. I would love for him to go after that ruthless animal.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

I think Nader supports Sanders, and his campaign is far from over despite the impression given by the media.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

The retired police officers saw it in person with their own eyes as they patrolled these areas.

What does that have to do with Trump lying about having seen it on tv?

That Trump saw any of this himself is the exaggeration.

No, an exaggeration is an embellishment of the truth. But trump didn't see it on tv, so there is no embellishment, just a big fat lie.

But it isn't a lie, because what he described as happening actually happened.

He described having seen it on tv. So no, he didn't describe what actually happened. He lied.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

The retired police officers saw it in person with their own eyes as they patrolled these areas. They then told the 10-30 people celebrating it wasn't in their best interest of their personal safety to keep doing that so they dispersed. That Trump saw any of this himself is the exaggeration. But it isn't a lie, because what he described as happening actually happened. Just not in the manner or extent that he said it did. Thus, he "exaggerated".

Wow. And I thought Bill Clinton was stretching reality with his "That depends on your definition of is" defense. Sorry but "No". Trump described watching "thousands and thousands of people" on television celebrating in Jersey City, New Jersey. That did not happen. Nothing even remotely close to that happened and it wasn't broadcast on any TV anywhere.

TRUMP: “Hey, I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down.

Lie #1 and Lie #2: Lie #1 - He did not "watch" this because it was not broadcast on television. Lie #2 - the (now) retired police officer claiming this happened remembers the event, but can't do better than 20 - 30 people on the roof cheering. Add to this another 20 or so apparently celebrating on JFK boulevard. So we're looking at about 50 people apparently celebrating the World Trade Center burning. 50 people does not resemble "thousands and thousands of people" in the slightest.

Thousands of people were cheering.**”

And just to make sure you heard it, he repeated Lie #2

STEPHANOPOULOS: “You know, the police say that didn’t happen and all those rumors have been on the Internet for some time. So did you misspeak yesterday?”

TRUMP: “It did happen. I saw it.

A repeat of Lie #1. Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that he believes if he repeats a lie often enough, people will eventually believe him.

STEPHANOPOULOS: “You saw that…”

TRUMP: "It was on television. I saw it."

Lie #3 and (again) a repeat of Lie #1.

4 ( +5 / -2 )

"I have great respect for women," declared Trump, "including Hillary Clinton, who," he added, respectfully, "I'm totally going to schlong in the upcoming general election."

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Anyone can utter a claim on the fly that others might take issue with later; we've all done it. A pattern of doing so, though, tends to remove sympathy. But building an entire campaign bases completely on falsehoods takes audacity of the type only Trump and his cohorts have. Really, aspirations are one thing - it would be wonderful if Apple moved its production to the States, Mexico would take responsibility for the border, tax revenues would rise by cutting taxes - but there is that pesky thing called "reality." Apple won't even repatriate their offshore profits, Mexico can't even secure its jails, and Trump's budget plan makes Bush's look prudent

Can any Trump supporter here tell me of any single Trump proposal that actually holds water? I doubt so; his entire candidacy is a lie.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

@MarkG,

The GOP has a woman, a black man, and two Hispanics but when they insult them it's not racism. Extreemly shallow.

I'm aware of Cruz being called someone who makes flip-flops feel inadequate, but that's because he has a tendency to reverse his stance and then insist he never did so... nothing related to race. So please enlighten me. What were these insults that were racist, and did the originators of the insults ever make it past the second grade?

And... just for future reference the category "woman" is not a race category. It's a gender category.

The certain democrat nominee lies to the public and all is good. Again, extremely shallow.

Again, how about actually listing the "lie" rather than making vague accusations.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

"Can any Trump supporter here tell me of any single Trump proposal that actually holds water? I doubt so; his entire candidacy is a lie."

Can any Clinton supporter here tell me of any single Clinton proposal that actually holds water?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Mr. Potty Mouth, from the Know-Nothing Party, wants Sec. Clinton to be careful as to what she says? Well, no one ever said the man lacked chutzpah.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Mr. Trump is correct about one thing, and that is there is a lot of "ammunition" he can use against Hillary Clinton should he make it past the republican primaries. There is only one person who can beat Donald Trump fairly easily next November, and that is Bernie Sanders. Hillary with all of her "baggage", would most likely lose to Trump.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Funny thing about Hillary being a woman.... at this point I think most Americans, excluding the average Conservative, see her as Presidential material and really don't think about her gender. If elected she'd obviously become the 1st Female President of the U.S., but that fact might not be a novelty to those that vote for her. The thing is, if she is elected, there will be a greater divide in the U.S. between Conservatives and Liberals. The Conservatives detest President Obama but they know he has just a year left and have backed off attacking him. If Hillary is elected, conservatives in the U.S. will be one extremely unhappy constituency and I wouldn't be surprised if we heard talk of certain states wanting to secede. If I were working for Hillary as an election advisor. I'd be pushing to make Donald Trump my Republican adversary, but the whole time I'd be finding as much dirt on him as possible. Because if Donald becomes the Republican backed candidate he is the one that is not a seasoned politician and he's quite emotional. If properly handled Hillary could make Donald self destruct do to those weaknesses. The question is.... is Hillary smart enough to do that. I'm not saying she will be the Democratic Candidate but if she is... and Donald is the Republican candidate, it will be quite interesting. However, that said, I really wish we had better choices than those two.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@fadamor...How about the Benghazi attack? She knew it was a planed terrorist attack commemorating 9/11 yet she and the administration blamed an anti Islam video for triggering the "spontaneous" responsive attack. Flat out lied.

And, has her email investigation continues she has sent/received classified emails- lied. She claimed to have turned over all her emails, she didn't, she lied. She claims to have cooperated fully, bingo! More lies, secret servers found.

And she is honest? Like Slick Willy was honest?

@Yogi Zuna....the DNC is not supporting Sanders, that's clear as day. Hillary does have a ton of baggage. She can be cut to pieces when the time comes. If she's not in jail for obstruction of justice.

-5 ( +2 / -6 )

Hillary with all of her "baggage", would most likely lose to Trump.

I doubt it. When faced with a choice between a woman they don't trust, and a bigoted, divisive liar, I think the majority of Americans will choose the woman they don't trust.

How about the Benghazi attack? She knew it was a planed terrorist attack commemorating 9/11 yet she and the administration blamed an anti Islam video for triggering the "spontaneous" responsive attack. Flat out lied.

Funny how 23 Benghazi commissions (or however many ridiculous number there have been) have never actually come up with that conclusion. Is this another of those lies that they tell you in the bubble?

0 ( +3 / -4 )

I doubt it. When faced with a choice between a woman they don't trust, and a bigoted, divisive liar, I think the majority of Americans will choose the woman they don't trust.

30 years of Hillary and add to that, the woman wants to give the country a 3rd Obama term, No thanks. I think the people are just piling on the Trump wagon and willing to go with Trump, over that lying woman.

Funny how 23 Benghazi commissions (or however many ridiculous number there have been) have never actually come up with that conclusion. Is this another of those lies that they tell you in the bubble.

Yeah, she's a lawyer and who are lawyers? Some of THE best liars on the planet and it also does help if you have a shredder with you as well.

Can any Trump supporter here tell me of any single Trump proposal that actually holds water? I doubt so; his entire candidacy is a lie.

So how are Hillary's lies better?

When you tell women they cannot have abortions or that you will close down all of Planned Parenthood, women are going to think you aren't listening to their concerns.

No one is saying that! What a load of crap! The issue wasn't about closing PP, the issue is from next year when the budget committee meets again to strip out only the provisions that fund the sales and distribution of selling baby parts. That part of the tab can be picked up privately with no guilt or making any tax payer feel complicit for being involved in a vile and despicable act.

That's what the GOP does. Maybe you agree or disagree with those policies but obviously the safety and welfare of women overall isn't the driving force. They lose access to obtainable healthcare all because of religion, or misplaced outrage, or just to score political points. That tends to piss them off.

They shouldn't be, because everything will be and stay the same except for the part of the abortion bill that funds the sales and distribution parts of fetuses.

-7 ( +2 / -8 )

I can Laguna. I cannot Serrano.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

@Stranger......look up the proven facts on the mysterious anti Islam film which caused the Benghazi attack.

The bubble protects you from facts it seems. Hillary's email dated same day "it was an orchestrated terrorist attack". Days later at the airport receiving the dead bodies of the victims, "it was a spontaneous response to the anti Islam film".

Lie or mistake? Facts don't change. Let them penetrate your world.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Shall we go through Republican lies on Benghazi now?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Benghazi. It never ceases to amaze me how much a zealous misguided patriot will continue to blindly beat a dead horse to the point where normal people just tune it out. If a Republican presidential candidate sites Benghazi going forward he or she will only turn off the Swing Vote. Because the Swing Vote, at this point, is tired of hearing about it. Right or Wrong... they don't care.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@Stranger......look up the proven facts on the mysterious anti Islam film which caused the Benghazi attack.

Yeah, because some internet hacks know more about the story than 86 (or however many) Benghazi witch hunts in the government that didn't find anything.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Shall we go through Republican lies on Benghazi now?

Such as? If you guys keep on digging, you'll hit China soon.

Benghazi. It never ceases to amaze me how much a zealous misguided patriot will continue to blindly beat a dead horse to the point where normal people just tune it out.

For Democrats it's a dead horse, I get it, but not for the families, that the point that matters.

If a Republican presidential candidate sites Benghazi going forward he or she will only turn off the Swing Vote. Because the Swing Vote, at this point, is tired of hearing about it. Right or Wrong... they don't care.

I doubt it, Hillary is over 59% polling negatively when it comes to her being untrustworthy. You can believe she will definetly lose a lot of independent voters for sure, they may not care, but they care even less for Hillary.

Yeah, because some internet hacks know more about the story than 86 (or however many) Benghazi witch hunts in the government that didn't find anything

And yet, the FBI is still investigating Hillary and they would never do that if there wasn't a doubt about her innocence.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

the FBI is still investigating Hillary

Um, no they're not (http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/there-is-no-fbi-investigation-of-hillary-clinton/22894/). But ignoring that, the FBI has never been investigating Hillary on Benghazi, so how could they still be doing so?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Um, no they're not (http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/there-is-no-fbi-investigation-of-hillary-clinton/22894/). But ignoring that, the FBI has never been investigating Hillary on Benghazi, so how could they still be doing so?

I'll tell you this, my brother is a cop and one thing I do know without a single doubt as I have been in valves with the FBI on a few cases in the past, even if they say, you are not being investigated, you still are UNTIL they publicly (as in this case because she is a political figure) make an announcement that you aren't. They do this all the time, the police as well. Even if the agent that is assigned to the case or case officer, if he or she is taken off the case for whatever reason, the next incoming officer will take over until the case is solved or closed.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

I'll tell you this, my brother is a cop and one thing I do know without a single doubt as I have been in valves with the FBI on a few cases in the past, even if they say, you are not being investigated, you still are UNTIL they publicly (as in this case because she is a political figure) make an announcement that you aren't.

Yeah yeah, you always come up with some sibling who somehow knows what the rest of the world doesn't.

Anyways, you ignored the fact that you were wrong that the FBI was ever investigating Hillary over Benghazi, much less still doing so. Care to comment?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Yeah yeah, you always come up with some sibling who somehow knows what the rest of the world doesn't.

So it's my fault that I he a large family????

Anyways, you ignored the fact that you were wrong that the FBI was ever investigating Hillary over Benghazi, much less still doing so. Care to comment?

Actually, I wasn't wrong as much as you want to deny OR you just don't understand how the police and FBI operate. They have pretty much always operated in this way. But seeing and knowing how they operate, I'll take their word for it. I know it deeply pains liberals to want to accept that there could be a possibility that Hillary could be land in hot water over this, we just don't know.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I'm not an FBI agent and even if you knew an agent, most won't discuss the case with just anyone, of course not, unless it involves certain situations.

So I'm curious, how do you know that the FBI was investigating Hillary over Benghazi, when no one else in the world does? And for that matter, why would the FBI investigate Hillary over something that happened in another country?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Strangerland is correct. The FBI is investigating Hillary's email usage and it has zero to do with Benghazi. Another case of an overzealous conservative twisting the truth. I'm no big fan of Hillary, but the more conservative's twist the truth and lie about what she's done actually makes me want to vote for her just to tick them off. Imagine if Hillary actually won... good lord, the conservatives will be crying bloody murder.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

there could be a possibility that Hillary could be land in hot water over this, we just don't know.

This pretty much sums up the GOP's position on all of their "investigations" into Clinton. Just fire up the next one and speculate endlessly then sweep the story under the carpet when the investigation concludes that there was no wrongdoing.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

So I'm curious, how do you know that the FBI was investigating Hillary over Benghazi, when no one else in the world does?

The FBI are going through her email hard drives, this is true, but at the same time, that investigation is to find out whether she bribed, made illegal deals with shady dictators to donate money to her foundation, the other if she gave a stand down order or was it given to her to pass along some of the soldiers that tried to save the ambassador. They are trying to see if there are links to all of this, which essentially means in a roundabout way, she is being investigated per say. That would be be the proper to explain the full context of what's going on. This is nothing new, the FBI does this all the time.

And for that matter, why would the FBI investigate Hillary over something that happened in another country?

They are investigating if she lied, if she perjured herself in her testimony and where the order for the men to stop and to stand down came from. Backup was requested, it was denied, there was an election coming up and many people in the Pentagon and military do not understand how and why these orders were given as well and most importantly, who exactly gave that order? And you won't know until you go over with a fine toothed comb and scrutinize every single mail. This is a normal procedure they do all the time. Hillary is a lawyer, she knows this, why else would any normal person shred, destroy thousands of pages of paper, shred up document, have multiple phones and use your own personal email address instead of government state of department issued address? The same goes for her foundations. Liberals and Democrats can say whatever they want to the general public as well as the media, that's all irrelevant. The FBI will stop the investigation of her mails once they get every single mail and can see and confirm that there was absolutely no wrongdoing whatsoever, then they will officially conclude the investigation and make a statement on TV.

but the more conservative's twist the truth and lie about what she's done actually makes me want to vote for her just to tick them off.

So which conservative on 9/11 was present when our ambassador and the other men were murdered? That's not twisting the truth, that's the reality of what happened. Has nothing to do with conservatives.

Imagine if Hillary actually won... good lord, the conservatives will be crying bloody murder

The same result would happen if Trump were to become president.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Bass, the stand down order has already been debunked by Republicans:

The final report, from Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Michigan, and ranking member Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Maryland, concludes there was no intelligence failure prior to the attack, no stand-down order to CIA operatives trying to go assist at the besieged consular building and found conflicting intelligence in the wake of the attack about the motive and cause, which were reflected in early public comments by the administration.

The FBI is investigating what security measures were on her hard drive and checking to see if there's any evidence of a compromise. That's it. The emails themselves are being released to the public in batches and are available for even you and I to go over if we want to.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I used to listen to Guns N' Roses, now I listen to Trump.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The FBI is investigating what security measures were on her hard drive and checking to see if there's any evidence of a compromise. That's it.

That's what they tell you and me, but that's not how the FBI do an investigation, because if it were that simple, the attorney General would have never been involved.

The emails themselves are being released to the public in batches and are available for even you and I to go over if we want to.

Yes and they're still not done and they're releasing the emails that have been screened and are sure they don't hold vital and secretive information, but the ones that are red flags go into a different pile and throughly shifted through.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

That's what they tell you and me, but that's not how the FBI do an investigation, because if it were that simple, the attorney General would have never been involved.

It's all an evil conspiracy. Hillary gave a stand down order because she could care less about are country. She thought that by having an ambassador killed she could help Obama win the election. The victims families and Fox News said so! And Breitbart. You libs think your smarter then EVERYBODY, but believe me, the families no whats going on. Time to except reality.

2 ( +4 / -3 )

That's what they tell you and me

What? Now you suddenly have secretive information that you are just now telling us about?

Yes and they're still not done and they're releasing the emails that have been screened and are sure they don't hold vital and secretive information, but the ones that are red flags go into a different pile and throughly shifted through.

Did you mean "sifted" through? They have found emails that were later marked as classified, and obviously they are not releasing those emails now if they have been changed to classified. But the question has always been if the information was classified at that time, and so far that special pile you are talking about has not yielded anything of benefit for Republicans.

After 9 investigations there has been no actionable information against Clinton and people to the left of Repiblicans have checked out of the issue entirely. The bubble handlers can always say, "we just don't know" to keep the GOP salivating (and fuel endless speculation), but it's not a large enough number of people and they weren't going to vote for Hillary anyway. At this point they are just talking to themselves.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Bass obviously doesn't realize that the FBI scope is local, and has nothing to do with Benghazi. Not that he'd ever admit he was wrong with this comment though:

Yeah, because some internet hacks know more about the story than 86 (or however many) Benghazi witch hunts in the government that didn't find anything

And yet, the FBI is still investigating Hillary and they would never do that if there wasn't a doubt about her innocence.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Bass obviously doesn't realize that the FBI scope is local, and has nothing to do with Benghazi.

Mostly, it does not, but the FBI, state department, the CIA are most definitely interested in seeing a pattern of lies and deception whether it's about her foundation or Benghazi and the key to unlocking that million dollar question is to check her emails, but wait, the woman shredded her mails, tried to destroy her hard drives, when they were court summoned, which does not happen, unless there is a valid reason, that includes involving the state department. Liberals can believe what they want, but the FBI is looking for a consistent pattern by Hillary and the best way you catch a lawyer, you search their past records.

Not that he'd ever admit he was wrong with this comment though.

Personally, of course, but it's not my opinion, this is just how the FBI operate.

It's all an evil conspiracy.

No, it's more about her credibility which NO ONE believes

Hillary gave a stand down order because she could care less about are country. She thought that by having an ambassador killed she could help Obama win the election.

No, but the fact is, had the public known and that story would have came out that there was a stand down order given at the time from some of the men that tried to mobilize a rescue mission to extract the ambassador and the staff, there is a very likely chance that Obama, 6 weeks from being reelected, would probably not have been.

The victims families and Fox News said so!

None of the families believe Hillary is telling the truth or the WH for that matter. FNC has nothing to do with that. But I guess liberals believe that the families all got together and decided to frame Hillary and Obama. And so for liberals, the Unicornverse expands with every puff.

And Breitbart. You libs think your smarter then EVERYBODY, but believe me, the families no whats going on. Time to except reality.

No, the just don't believe the lies and garbage they peddle and try to force feed the public.

What? Now you suddenly have secretive information that you are just now telling us about.

No, just your typical every day FBI operational protocol.

Did you mean "sifted" through? They have found emails that were later marked as classified, and obviously they are not releasing those emails now if they have been changed to classified. But the question has always been if the information was classified at that time, and so far that special pile you are talking about has not yielded anything of benefit for Republicans.

Not to benefit the GOP, more like seeking the truth to her constant lies, you libs also forget the fact that Obama's nominee choice for the Democrats was Biden and not Hillary. Who does the head of the state department answer to? Who has the final say? Of course, Obama. They both don't like each other, she was never his choice and she's far too much of a centrist. The Benghazi trials didn't show anything (so far) and when Obama knew she wasn't going to be indicted, Biden didn't see that his chances were good, he know he wasn't going to have a chance, so he declined to enter the race. He was the one that Obama strongly supported and knew Biden would continue his policies.

After 9 investigations there has been no actionable information against Clinton and people to the left of Repiblicans have checked out of the issue entirely.

Hey, even with 59% of having a credibility issue. Hillary is not going to have an easy time whatsoever, that alone is going to dramatically diminish her chances for gaining her crown.

The bubble handlers can always say, "we just don't know" to keep the GOP salivating (and fuel endless speculation), but it's not a large enough number of people and they weren't going to vote for Hillary anyway. At this point they are just talking to themselves.

Keep telling yourself that. It's amazing how liberals think everyone is dumb, except for the people that occupy the progressive unicornverse.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Now Bass wants us to think that the FBI is suddenly interested in Benghazi and Hillary - even though he is the only person on the planet saying so.

Yeah, right.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Who is the special prosecutor handling the case, bass?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Bass.... well I will give you a bit of credit. At least you pointed out that Both parties would do the same. Many conservatives can not even admit that. I have respect for a Conservative that will at least admit his party also is "just as bad".

0 ( +2 / -2 )

seeking the truth to her constant lies

This is how the GOP-Tea conducts an investigation against a 'lib':

Start on the assumption that the suspect CONSTANTLY lies.

Investigate.

When NO incriminating evidence is found, repeat from 1. Ad nauseam.

I guess liberals believe that the families all got together and decided to frame Hillary and Obama.

No, I suspect the families are upset and have been manipulated by certain groups who profit from fear and loathing.

And so for liberals, the Unicornverse expands with every puff.

That's right, baby. We just can't except reality and we think we are smarter then everybody else, what with our facts and all.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The whole 'Hillary is a compulsive liar' thing reminds me of the WMDs in Iraq. America swore up and down that Iraq had WMDs, and forced Iraq to let in the weapons inspectors. When the inspectors, who were unfettered, didn't find the WMDs, America said 'they are hiding them', and invaded Iraq. Final verdict? No WMDs.

With Hillary, the republicans are saying 'she's lying about Benghazi, and about her emails'. Countless investigations later, they still haven't found anything, but instead of accepting that as evidence that she didn't lie, they are framing this as evidence that she is a compulsive liar, since they can't find her (non-existent) lies. And I don't blindly believe that she didn't lie - I am basing this on the investigations that have found nothing.

Last time the republicans refused to believe what the facts were showing them, they invaded and destroyed a country, killed 100s of thousands of innocents, and created the circumstances that led to the existence of ISIS, and some serious hatred of the US and the West in general within the Middle East. What ridiculous actions are they going to take against Hillary when they can't find any non-existent evidence, particularly if she becomes president? I could seriously see them inciting a civil war, and then destroying their own country. It would fit the pattern of their previous actions.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

well I will give you a bit of credit. At least you pointed out that Both parties would do the same. Many conservatives can not even admit that. I have respect for a Conservative that will at least admit his party also is "just as bad"

Oh, believe me, I don't have love for either parties. I just wish more liberals would admit the same.

This is how the GOP-Tea conducts an investigation against a 'lib':

Start on the assumption that the suspect CONSTANTLY lies.

That is, if the guilty liberal (in this case, Hillary) has a very good shredder

Investigate.

But who is leading the charge?

When NO incriminating evidence is found, repeat from 1. Ad nauseam.

If the FBI would follow the same exact standards you're advocating, No crime would ever be solved.

The whole 'Hillary is a compulsive liar' thing reminds me of the WMDs in Iraq.

When has she ever spoken the truth?

America swore up and down that Iraq had WMDs, and forced Iraq to let in the weapons inspectors. When the inspectors, who were unfettered, didn't find the WMDs, America said 'they are hiding them', and invaded Iraq. Final verdict? No WMDs.

What does WMD have anything to do with Hillary's dishonesty.

With Hillary, the republicans are saying 'she's lying about Benghazi, and about her emails'.

Would seem so, you don't get a 59% disapproval rating if you are in the good graces with the general public.

Countless investigations later, they still haven't found anything, but instead of accepting that as evidence that she didn't lie,

Right and Bill NEVER had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky either.

they are framing this as evidence that she is a compulsive liar, since they can't find her (non-existent) lies. And I don't blindly believe that she didn't lie - I am basing this on the investigations that have found nothing.

Not yet.....

Last time the republicans refused to believe what the facts were showing them, they invaded and destroyed a country, killed 100s of thousands of innocents,

You mean the sectarian violence caused the majority of casualties.

and created the circumstances that led to the existence of ISIS,

Whoa, padner! That was Obama,you can pretty much ask any high ranking military official, I'll take their word over the presidents or any progressives words.

and some serious hatred of the US and the West in general within the Middle East.

That hate if you look at it from a historical point of view goes way back to beginning of early America when our navy had to fight Muslim pirates, it's not something new.

What ridiculous actions are they going to take against Hillary when they can't find any non-existent evidence, particularly if she becomes president?

Won't have to, from the looks of it, she's slowly tightening the noose around her neck.

I could seriously see them inciting a civil war,

Obama is already a step ahead...

$and then destroying their own country. It would fit the pattern of their previous actions.

He's already done that and still has 316 days (Thank god) left.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

So who is the special prosecutor, bass?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Can Trump actually win the presidency?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"I have great respect for women," declared Trump, "including Hillary Clinton, who," he added, respectfully, "I'm totally going to schlong in the upcoming general election."

Well that will be the first time since Web Hubbell.... oh, never mind.

Anyway, Trump has never slut-shamed multiple women for having an affair with him. Hillary and her sycophants have certainly done so to many women who have claimed that her husband sexually assaulted them. And you know, according to Hillary, whenever a women claims she is assaulted she should be believed. Except if it's Bill then that's different. All of those of those other poor saps are to be assumed to be guilty.

Trump is just itching to go after Hillary's defense of Bill's affairs and abuse of women to protect her own future political viability. Hillary couldn't personally sleep her way to the top, but she could allow her husband to sleep around while she rode his coattails to now becoming all but the Democrat party nominee for president. A small price to pay for a shot at the presidency I suppose.

Can Trump actually win the presidency?

I hope not. But if the Dem's go ahead and nominate Hillary even a Trump presidency isn't out of the question. Hillary is so corrupt and unlikeable she makes Trump seem almost respectable. I saw a recent poll that in a general election matchup between the two Hillary and Trump are in a statistical dead heat. How sad is that?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Why is Hillary corrupt?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Go through Hillary corruptions videos about her emails, contradictions, false statements and lies on YouTube and the press. You can go back as far as 30 years to follow the crumb trails.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

But there are no court convictions. It just sounds like an expression of dislike.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Just because someone hasn't been convicted by a court of law doesn't mean they are immune to pulling funny business.

[ “They’ve engaged in behavior to make people wonder: What was this about?” says Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, who is a Democrat. “Was there something other than deciding the merits of these cases?”

Critics also have hit the charity for accepting donations from foreign governments, which they say could pose problems for her if she is elected, potentially opening her to criticism that she is obligated to foreign donors. ]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/ubs-deal-shows-clintons-complicated-ties-1438223492

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

There is a lot "funny" business about Obama being born in Kenya just like lots of stuff going around about Hillary. But (in Obama's case) unless the Department of State presses criminal charges against anyone for falsifying a US passport I am unconvinced just like I am unconvinced that Hillary is a felon. "Funny business" and "corrupt" without a court indictment is simply personal opinion that has no validation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But there are no court convictions. It just sounds like an expression of dislike.

So it is not possible for a politician to be corrupt unless they are convicted? So all one has left to do is to buyoff a few judges and politicians and crime is essentially obsolete. Sounds like Hillary has got it made.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Hillary paid off some judges? That would be a crime. This needs to be reported.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites