Why do people support Hillary Clinton?

That may have been the purpose of the starter of this thread but I really want to know how people could vote for her? I mean I dont know if she did or did not cover something up in Bengazi. But I know she did delete over 10k emails that may have involved that topic or others. If someone has been asked to turn over documents or anything to the authorities and they decide to destroy part of that info, what should we think? Why should we just take her at her word? Why should we trust her when the emails she has given over show that they did contain sensitive information? Why should we trust our country's security to her when she could not even follow the security protocols of her own department? Heck why are not more Democrats asking these questions? Please my fellow Americans that are going to vote for her or want to, tell me.

 

First off, when the emails were destroyed she was not under any subpoena or order to preserve those records. Second, there is no cover up on Benghazi that has been thoroughly debunked by numerous investigations.

You ask how people can vote for her?

Maybe because most people know for a fact that everyone lies to certain extent. What is important is what you lie about it and how you come clean if caught. Second thing, most people know that politics is one of the sleaziest profession someone can get into. If you are not sleazy you have to surround yourself with sleazy people in order to be successful. There is always a trade-off of between the sleazy quotient the ability quotient and the political ideology quotient. The more ideologically you match up with a candidate the most likely their sleaziness and ability take second seat. However let's not pretend that any politician is above sleazy behavior. Hillary has high sleazy quotient but she also has very high ability quotient and if your are aligned with her political ideology the answer is clear. That being said a lot of the sleazy quotient attributed to Hillary is guilt by association with Bill.

 

The gunfire in Bosnia doesn't get the same story because Hillary admitted that it was in error. Ben has not...that is the difference.

No desperation and there is plenty of direct evidence that prove Carson is lying.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a39579/ben-carson-debunked-west-point/

The article demonstrably proves that this story is fabrication. It is not desperate at all. It is factual, Ben Carson is still pushing this demonstrably false claim.

 

There are probably pre 2008 election agreements involved, I don't think voters will elect Ms. Clinton in 2016, regardless media's support. While there are a good many voters, that will support her for either being a woman or think she will continue the Obama gravy train, I just can't believe the country has turned that far left.

 

Why do American deaths in Benghazi mean more to Americans than daily American murders at home.

 

LOL.. You realize of course that Hillary only admitted it was an error after irrefutable proof was presented that there wasn't gunfire. The second problem is that she only offered it was a "mistake". You'll notice there was never an apology for fabricating (lying about) the event. In her mind, the only mistake was getting caught.

And I see you're still pandering that article as irrefutable proof that Carson lied. All the article essentially pointed out was he'd probably have to wait an additional year to attend West Point. BUSTED!! The smoking gun is revealed. NOT….

So back to the question I asked that you didn't answer. Why not the same scrutiny on Hillary's very questionable story about trying to join the Marines?? She can't prove she actually tried, or produce the recruiter she allegedly spoke to, so where is the quest for truth?? I'm assuming that as a standup guy, you don't practice selective outrage. Help me out on this.

 

If you think Hillary is to the left, I have a one-eyed camel that (*)(*)(*)(*)s diamonds I'd like to sell ya.

 

and Carly will amaze...

 

So, having a person with different sexual plumbing is so important that it would mean putting a woman in office who is too stupid to comply with national security protocols, managing her own classified information communications, and separating blatant lies from truth -- especially when it's unavoidable that these will be exposed in PUBLIC?!

How could anyone be so stupid that they could think that they could lie to the survivors of the men killed at the Benghazi consulate, and then lie to the American public, making up bull(*)(*)(*)(*) about how the whole tragedy was because of a "video"?! How could the owner of at least two mansions and a lifestyle that is definitely in the upper-reaches of the hated "1%" have the gall to come out in front of an even marginally intelligent American public and blather out nonsense about how she and her husband left the White House "dead broke"?! Hillary Clinton may take the rank-and-file Libocrat Party for fools, but not the rest of us. And not our adversaries, either!

. "Three American presidents in a ROW who are idiots?! Can I really get that lucky?!"

 

Let's be blatantly honest. Her supporters support her because of her gender, her opposition of Republicans, and her pro-black lives matter stance.

If one actually analyzed her disastrous political career, she wouldn't be a candidate. In fact, she's a criminal. Her supporters will just go "fake scandal" or plug their ears and cry "NO!" but it's true.

 

The article most definitely PROVES that Carson is in fact lying. He claimed in his book that he was introduced to Westmoreland by Sgt Hunt after the memorial day parade. Westmoreland was not at the memorial day parade. Carson did not have dinner with Westmoreland that night and was not introduced to Westmoreland by anyone that night. The best he can do is claim that it was banquet being held in honor of Dwight Johnson in February. A far cry from the false story he told about memorial day and dinner. Again there is nothing to prove that he did in fact attend this banquet or even met Westmoreland. We only have his word a word which already is proven false as above.

Again please explain to me why or how Westmoreland, knowing the entrance requirements would "offer" anyone anything except possibly a letter of introduction and/or mentorship. That is a far cry from being offered a scholarship. Any way you slice this story it is demonstrably false. Carson is lying about this. Being faced with the obvious truth instead manning up and admitting it he is whining about press bias and allowing his advocates to play the race card.

 

So many Americans support Hillary Clinton because the GOP has failed to offer a candidate that they might prefer, although there is insistence that they are somewhere out there. "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

There is still time, and those not enamoured of Mrs C would do well to hire Blix, Duelfer, and Kay to commence the search.

Meanwhile, As pure entertainment, the Republican political ingénues continue to take the comedy cake, the Democratic candidates, in contrast, an exceedingly drab display of normality and comity.

​

 

What successes as Secretary of State vs. Failures would you say qualify her to lead the free world?

Does her vote for "Yes" in the Senate for the Iraq war qualify her? Obama was smart enough to vote "no". But ole Hildawg? Hah.

 

She deleted the emails sometime before OCT of 2014 after the state department asked for them. She refused to give them the servers and did not relinquish until she was forced to. I dont know what was on those servers, only Clinton does. But her actions speak of duplicitousness and at least shows that she will not be transparent with the people of this country even when compelled by duly authorised departments of the government. More important it shows that our nation's secrets are less important to her then her own.

You are right everyone lies and politicians more than most. I expect to be lied to at times but I also expect to be able to trust that our president is trying to do what is in the best interests of the nation not just themselves. President Obama for all his faults in my opinion has tried to do what he thought was best for this country His decision have been poor in that respect but his motivations have not been. I know there are people on the Right who will scream bloody murder about my opinion but that is what I have concluded after the last few years of his administration. During this time I have also watched Clinton and she is a politician of a different stripe. it has always been the Clintons first the nation second. Always she does what she thinks will best serve her and get her where she wants to go. I lean very close to the libertarians yet I would still pick Bernie Sanders over her if I had to choose between them. Why is that? The reason because Sanders does what he says and means what he says and I truly believe he has the best interests of the nation at heart even though he is terribly misguided. This is not partisan it is a matter of ethics and Mrs Clinton has a very big problem with that topic.

 

While we're being blatantly honest, I couldn't care less about her gender or about her pro-BLM stance. I do, however, love her general opposition to Republicans. I believe there is no higher calling in this life than to be anti-Republican.

 

So you agree that the deletions of emails occurred BEFORE anyone asked for them. That is correct so no nefarious activity can be delineated from those deletions. All deletions took place BEFORE any records requests were made. Also the State Department NEVER requested Hillary's servers just her emails.

 

No she deleted them after the state department asked for copies for the public record. I mistyped that I apologise.

 

You answered your own question up above. It's generally acknowledged the meeting could have been held in February instead of March. Dang, we're taking about recollections of dates back in 1969. Regardless, even Politico, in their red meat witch hunt, referenced the possibility:

"There are, however, several reports of an event in February of that year, similar to the one Carson described."

So again, I asked you for irrefutable 'slam dunk' proof, and you're failing to deliver. I'm not interested in that you desperately want to believe Carson lied. I get how you feel. I want proof. That's in proof that they never meet. Proof from a credible witness in their meeting that an offer of any kind never happened. Pointing out a date discrepancy that has a believable and verifiable explanation is not proof. Asking me to justify what Westmoreland may or may not have said is not proof. Maybe reading the dictionary definition of 'proof' will help you sort this out.

OK, we're through that. So what about my question to you about Hillary? Why not the same scrutiny on Hillary's very questionable story about trying to join the Marines?? I'm still not understanding what appears to be your selective outrage.

 

That is factually inaccurate. The deletions occurred after the request was made. Also there was no request by the State Department for the servers so that was equally factually incorrect.

 

Do you know when memorial day is? Memorial Day is in May not March. So his recollection would be off 3 months. I guarantee you that if Carson would have marched in parade in February in Detroit he would remember it...because he would still be trying to get warm today. Besides that if I met two Medal of Honor winners and Commander and Chief of MACV in 1969 it would be indelibly burned into my memory. Carson has been PROVEN to be a liar as to when and how he met Gen Westmoreland so we are to accept his word on other possibly meetings? The article is a slam dunk. Carson claimed to have been introduced to Westmoreland on memorial day and had dinner with him and two Medal of Honor recipients. That claim is demonstrably false...it did not happen. Any other claim that only has Carson's word for it is now suspect.

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...idence-in-wiping-clean-her-email-server-video

Is the Christian Science Monitor lying? If so do you have any sources to support that position?

 

The article only says it appears that she deleted them after October 28. No proof of that claim apparently they just surmise it. So CSM is not lying they are just misleading you by saying it appears to be something even though they have no proof of that. They do not make the direct claim.

 

Im sorry I had no idea you didnt have a tv, radio or internet until today.. they said the attack was caused by outrage from a youtube video...which the entire world now knows was a complete lie. Hillary told her family the truth and us and the families of the victims it was from a youtube video. If you dont get that Im sorry...I cant simplify it further.

 

Again, you're offering speculation and your personal opinion as proof. Several sources, including Politico, acknowledged that the meeting could have taken place in February.

I don't want to hear what you want to believe. We've been through that. What you think would be "indelibly burned into your memory" is your opinion, and not proof of anything. Save the speculations. When you can present something concrete -- something along the lines of Hillary absolutely being caught in lie regarding gun fire in Bosnia, I want to hear. I'll even thank you. I look forward to it. But only if you can deliver.

Now, speaking of Hillary, why not the same scrutiny on her very questionable story about trying to join the Marines?? I'm still not understanding what appears to be your selective outrage. What's the story??

 

What are you babbling about? We have a judicial system that punishes people for murder. If you know of judges covering up evidence Im all ears.